The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: mherrig97 on March 06, 2018, 09:30:47 AM
-
Any and all science or evidence aside, and there are mountains of evidence that the landing happened. The single greatest proof that the moon landings happened, specifically Apollo 11, lies with the Soviet Union. It's 1969, tensions are high, the US and the Soviet Union are engaged in a stiff Space Race. The Soviets put the first satellite in space, even the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, my hero. These 2 achievements were huge, the US was losing the race, however, they could still win. How you ask? Put the first man on the moon. The moon was the holy grail, whoever put a man on the moon effectively won the Space Race. Fast forward to July 20th 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are walking on the moon, Michael Collins is in Lunar orbit manning the Columbia module. The entire world is watching....an unprecedented 600,000,000 people, Soviets included, watched as human beings set foot on the moon, a massive victory for the United States, and a terrible embarrassment for the Soviet Union. Apollo 11 won the US the Space Race, the Soviet Union spent a tremendous amount of money on it's space program, which eventually contributed to the state's collapse in 1992. My biggest problem with the conspiracy theory is that the Soviet Union had satellites in both Earth and Lunar orbits, they could track Apollo 11 from Cape Canaveral all the way to the landing in the Sea of Tranquility. If Apollo 11 took place in a movie studio, the Soviets would know, so why didn't they call bullshit on the US? Exposing the conspiracy would be a devastating (understatement) blow to the US, no man, woman or child would ever trust the US government again, it'd be a colossal defeat, the Soviets would be able to take the Space Race Golden Trophy from Nixon and take it back to the Kremlin, drinking vodka and eating caviar all night long. Why were they silent if it actually were a hoax? Why wouldn't the Soviets say a word? The only reason the Soviet's wouldn't speak up is because there was no reason to, the US put 2 men on the moon that day and they knew it. *mic drop*
-
Any and all science or evidence aside, and there are mountains of evidence that the landing happened. The single greatest proof that the moon landings happened, specifically Apollo 11, lies with the Soviet Union. It's 1969, tensions are high, the US and the Soviet Union are engaged in a stiff Space Race. The Soviets put the first satellite in space, even the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, my hero. These 2 achievements were huge, the US was losing the race, however, they could still win. How you ask? Put the first man on the moon. The moon was the holy grail, whoever put a man on the moon effectively won the Space Race. Fast forward to July 20th 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are walking on the moon, Michael Collins is in Lunar orbit manning the Columbia module. The entire world is watching....an unprecedented 600,000,000 people, Soviets included, watched as human beings set foot on the moon, a massive victory for the United States, and a terrible embarrassment for the Soviet Union. Apollo 11 won the US the Space Race, the Soviet Union spent a tremendous amount of money on it's space program, which eventually contributed to the state's collapse in 1992. My biggest problem with the conspiracy theory is that the Soviet Union had satellites in both Earth and Lunar orbits, they could track Apollo 11 from Cape Canaveral all the way to the landing in the Sea of Tranquility. If Apollo 11 took place in a movie studio, the Soviets would know, so why didn't they call bullshit on the US? Exposing the conspiracy would be a devastating (understatement) blow to the US, no man, woman or child would ever trust the US government again, it'd be a colossal defeat, the Soviets would be able to take the Space Race Golden Trophy from Nixon and take it back to the Kremlin, drinking vodka and eating caviar all night long. Why were they silent if it actually were a hoax? Why wouldn't the Soviets say a word? The only reason the Soviet's wouldn't speak up is because there was no reason to, the US put 2 men on the moon that day and they knew it. *mic drop*
Another proponent of the "Cold War," narrative, believer in children assuming the position of safety under their desks in case of nuclear attack...LOLOLOLOL!!!
Come on, dude...get REAL!
The Cold War was a big fraud!
Both the US and Russia are totalitarian regimes and all the people in charge care about is maintaining control over the people.
How many people beside yourself do you personally know trust the government when it comes to honest and transparent reporting?
-
Any and all science or evidence aside, and there are mountains of evidence that the landing happened. The single greatest proof that the moon landings happened, specifically Apollo 11, lies with the Soviet Union. It's 1969, tensions are high, the US and the Soviet Union are engaged in a stiff Space Race. The Soviets put the first satellite in space, even the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, my hero. These 2 achievements were huge, the US was losing the race, however, they could still win. How you ask? Put the first man on the moon. The moon was the holy grail, whoever put a man on the moon effectively won the Space Race. Fast forward to July 20th 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are walking on the moon, Michael Collins is in Lunar orbit manning the Columbia module. The entire world is watching....an unprecedented 600,000,000 people, Soviets included, watched as human beings set foot on the moon, a massive victory for the United States, and a terrible embarrassment for the Soviet Union. Apollo 11 won the US the Space Race, the Soviet Union spent a tremendous amount of money on it's space program, which eventually contributed to the state's collapse in 1992. My biggest problem with the conspiracy theory is that the Soviet Union had satellites in both Earth and Lunar orbits, they could track Apollo 11 from Cape Canaveral all the way to the landing in the Sea of Tranquility. If Apollo 11 took place in a movie studio, the Soviets would know, so why didn't they call bullshit on the US? Exposing the conspiracy would be a devastating (understatement) blow to the US, no man, woman or child would ever trust the US government again, it'd be a colossal defeat, the Soviets would be able to take the Space Race Golden Trophy from Nixon and take it back to the Kremlin, drinking vodka and eating caviar all night long. Why were they silent if it actually were a hoax? Why wouldn't the Soviets say a word? The only reason the Soviet's wouldn't speak up is because there was no reason to, the US put 2 men on the moon that day and they knew it. *mic drop*
Another proponent of the "Cold War," narrative, believer in children assuming the position of safety under their desks in case of nuclear attack...LOLOLOLOL!!!
Come on, dude...get REAL!
The Cold War was a big fraud!
Both the US and Russia are totalitarian regimes and all the people in charge care about is maintaining control over the people.
How many people beside yourself do you personally know trust the government when it comes to honest and transparent reporting?
Yeah, it was totally fake. ::) I'll give the Soviets credit though - they played their part so well that they bankrupted their country, were thrown from power, and lost the control they had over people. I'm guessing you think the holocaust never happened and 9/11 was an inside job, too.
OP - I think you're right on the money. This cold war topic has come up before and it just doesn't hold any water for me. The Russians have no incentive to agree with the west. They take every opportunity to thumb their noses at the US, they wouldn't keep this lie going. If they knew it was flat and we claimed it was a globe, they would come out with proof it was flat and flaunt their scientific achievement.
-
Another proponent of the "Cold War," narrative, believer in children assuming the position of safety under their desks in case of nuclear attack...LOLOLOLOL!!!
Come on, dude...get REAL!
The Cold War was a big fraud!
Both the US and Russia are totalitarian regimes and all the people in charge care about is maintaining control over the people.
How many people beside yourself do you personally know trust the government when it comes to honest and transparent reporting?
So you have no actual arguments. Good to know.
OP, good points made. Like StinkyOne said there's no reason for the Soviets to ally with the US, and would immediately expose the US if they could, but they didn't.
-
Certainly, the USSR and the USA would not co-operate during the Cold War, except for all the times they openly did. But, other than that, they had absolutely no reason to co-operate, and it simply beggars belief that someone may suspect unofficial co-operation went further than what was officially and publicly announced.
https://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html
-
Any and all science or evidence aside, and there are mountains of evidence that the landing happened. The single greatest proof that the moon landings happened, specifically Apollo 11, lies with the Soviet Union. It's 1969, tensions are high, the US and the Soviet Union are engaged in a stiff Space Race. The Soviets put the first satellite in space, even the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, my hero. These 2 achievements were huge, the US was losing the race, however, they could still win. How you ask? Put the first man on the moon. The moon was the holy grail, whoever put a man on the moon effectively won the Space Race. Fast forward to July 20th 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are walking on the moon, Michael Collins is in Lunar orbit manning the Columbia module. The entire world is watching....an unprecedented 600,000,000 people, Soviets included, watched as human beings set foot on the moon, a massive victory for the United States, and a terrible embarrassment for the Soviet Union. Apollo 11 won the US the Space Race, the Soviet Union spent a tremendous amount of money on it's space program, which eventually contributed to the state's collapse in 1992. My biggest problem with the conspiracy theory is that the Soviet Union had satellites in both Earth and Lunar orbits, they could track Apollo 11 from Cape Canaveral all the way to the landing in the Sea of Tranquility. If Apollo 11 took place in a movie studio, the Soviets would know, so why didn't they call bullshit on the US? Exposing the conspiracy would be a devastating (understatement) blow to the US, no man, woman or child would ever trust the US government again, it'd be a colossal defeat, the Soviets would be able to take the Space Race Golden Trophy from Nixon and take it back to the Kremlin, drinking vodka and eating caviar all night long. Why were they silent if it actually were a hoax? Why wouldn't the Soviets say a word? The only reason the Soviet's wouldn't speak up is because there was no reason to, the US put 2 men on the moon that day and they knew it. *mic drop*
Another proponent of the "Cold War," narrative, believer in children assuming the position of safety under their desks in case of nuclear attack...LOLOLOLOL!!!
Come on, dude...get REAL!
The Cold War was a big fraud!
Both the US and Russia are totalitarian regimes and all the people in charge care about is maintaining control over the people.
How many people beside yourself do you personally know trust the government when it comes to honest and transparent reporting?
Well, not to mention it couldn't have been faked, as there are retro-reflectors on the surface of the moon. How would those get there without humans
shooting a rocket up into space and placing them? Do you think they just grew out of the ground?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment)
I think we're done here.
-
Certainly, the USSR and the USA would not co-operate during the Cold War, except for all the times they openly did. But, other than that, they had absolutely no reason to co-operate, and it simply beggars belief that someone may suspect unofficial co-operation went further than what was officially and publicly announced.
https://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html
So, having read that essay (interesting read btw) it only seems to point an even stronger finger to the fact that not only would it be incredibly likely for the USSR to have been able to figure out that NASA faked Apollo 11, but that they would have gleefully come out with such evidence. As a whole the article supports the idea that, despite their forays into working together prior to the Apollo missions, the USSR was never particularly open about the state of their program compared to NASA, and their leadership continued to view it as a real race and competition. It most assuredly simply backs up the idea presented by Mherrig, that the USSR would have pounced on the ability to show the US was lying. So thank you for such a great piece of evidence in that regard.
-
Well, not to mention it couldn't have been faked, as there are retro-reflectors on the surface of the moon. How would those get there without humans
shooting a rocket up into space and placing them? Do you think they just grew out of the ground?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment)
I think we're done here.
This was brought up before and there was some ludicrous suggestion that these could be naturally occurring. How we would discover these and know where to point our lasers at were this the case remains to be explained.
-
Certainly, the USSR and the USA would not co-operate during the Cold War, except for all the times they openly did. But, other than that, they had absolutely no reason to co-operate, and it simply beggars belief that someone may suspect unofficial co-operation went further than what was officially and publicly announced.
https://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html
Well the link you provided said that attempts were made to cooperate with the Soviets, but nearly every attempt was shot down or cancelled by one or both sides. It even says "The opportunity for using dramatic space cooperation efforts as a means of reducing the U.S.-Soviet Cold War rivalry had passed."
The US and USSR didn't really cooperate until 1975, with the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. The only other incident that I can recall is in 1969, when the Soviets provided details of their Luna 15 spacecraft so that it didn't collide with Apollo 11. In the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_15#Implications it says "The simultaneous missions became one of the first instances of Soviet–American space cooperation:"
-
Certainly, the USSR and the USA would not co-operate during the Cold War, except for all the times they openly did. But, other than that, they had absolutely no reason to co-operate, and it simply beggars belief that someone may suspect unofficial co-operation went further than what was officially and publicly announced.
https://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html
Scientists did cooperate at times, but tfes' claims are about the militarization of space and there is no evidence that there was military cooperation during the time period in question.
From the Wiki:
The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.
If you're trying to fake the concept of space travel to dominate space, why would you cooperate with your enemies?
-
Yeah, it was totally fake. ::) I'll give the Soviets credit though - they played their part so well that they bankrupted their country, were thrown from power, and lost the control they had over people. I'm guessing you think the holocaust never happened and 9/11 was an inside job, too.
OP - I think you're right on the money. This cold war topic has come up before and it just doesn't hold any water for me. The Russians have no incentive to agree with the west. They take every opportunity to thumb their noses at the US, they wouldn't keep this lie going. If they knew it was flat and we claimed it was a globe, they would come out with proof it was flat and flaunt their scientific achievement.
Oh yeah, bankrupted the country...
Currency in use today? The ruble... Source of currency? The government...how? Print more...
Oh yeah, the Communist Regime lost control and power of the people...
Current government now holds "free and open elections." Candidates available for choice? Former members/descendants of former members of the Politburo/KGB/other USSR agencies...
Dude, you really do need to check where your head is at relative to other body parts...
-
Oh, the reflectors on the moon...
Been watching a little too much of TBBT...
How are you realistically going to fire a laser at the moon, hit these reflectors and then target receptors back here on Earth?
that is the biggest pile of BS I have ever read offered as "proof."
-
Oh, the reflectors on the moon...
Been watching a little too much of TBBT...
How are you realistically going to fire a laser at the moon, hit these reflectors and then target receptors back here on Earth?
that is the biggest pile of BS I have ever read offered as "proof."
So your argument is basically “that sounds hard, I don’t understand how that could work, therefore it doesn’t”
That really isn’t an argument.
There’s a load of detail here about how it works
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
-
Oh, the reflectors on the moon...
Been watching a little too much of TBBT...
How are you realistically going to fire a laser at the moon, hit these reflectors and then target receptors back here on Earth?
that is the biggest pile of BS I have ever read offered as "proof."
Perhaps you should ask the folks who did it!
-
Oh, the reflectors on the moon...
Been watching a little too much of TBBT...
How are you realistically going to fire a laser at the moon, hit these reflectors and then target receptors back here on Earth?
that is the biggest pile of BS I have ever read offered as "proof."
So your argument is basically “that sounds hard, I don’t understand how that could work, therefore it doesn’t”
No, my argument is the claim is absolutely ludicrous and anyone who believes that claim will buy the Brooklyn Bridge if approached by a salesman.
-
No, my argument is the claim is absolutely ludicrous and anyone who believes that claim will buy the Brooklyn Bridge if approached by a salesman.
What is so impossible, or ludicrous, about firing a laser at the moon, and receiving photons back from the reflector?
-
It's hilarious that anyone still believes we put men on the moon doggie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrz6Ge1oD6w
-
It's hilarious that anyone still believes we put men on the moon doggie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrz6Ge1oD6w
Let's see. First bit, who is this man and why should I trust anything he has to say, especially when he is shown to not understand some of the basics of an environment without atmosphere when discussing moon dust in the cups of the lander. Why would the dust be billowing upwards? There's not air to be poofed about on landing and make dust clouds. Forces work very differently in an airless environment.
Second part, appears to have only been covered by a handful of news agencies, and is one of over 100 rocks that have gone missing in some manner. Hardly all that noteworthy for a rock that changed hands a few times to turn up as a fake at it's final destination.
The next little bit is any of a good handful of things. Without more footage or other showings to discount things like film degradation or lens issues, it's impossible to say just what is actually going on.
Ah yes, the 'black void' vs 'lots of stars' discussion. As though it's not possible for two people to experience the exact same thing and come away with very different ideas of what happened, or that it's easily possible neither are lying, depending upon where they are. On the moon the Earth will dominate much of the sky, saturating things and certainly drawing your eye. In the ISS you're there for a very long time, able to relax and observe things far more often and longer. Is it any wonder the two have very different memories of their time in space in regards to the sky?
Just another clickbait video with little to no actual substance to it.
-
Source of currency? The government...how? Print more...
Along with not knowing the shape of the Earth, you don't understand monetary systems either. Printing more money - great idea!!
Oh yeah, the Communist Regime lost control and power of the people... Current government now holds "free and open elections." Candidates available for choice? Former members/descendants of former members of the Politburo/KGB/other USSR agencies...
Yes, please ignore the past 20 years and focus solely on Putin's regime. This is very FEH of you - ignore all evidence that doesn't support your hypothesis. Russia was a case study in how bad Capitalism with corruption can be. I've been around long enough to remember the cold war. I know how it played out.
-
No, my argument is the claim is absolutely ludicrous and anyone who believes that claim will buy the Brooklyn Bridge if approached by a salesman.
But that isn't an argument at all.
Your personal incredulity about something is not a valid argument against it.
As I said elsewhere, I could pour scorn on the idea that an aircraft weighing over 500 tonnes could get off the ground, much less transport people thousands of miles in comfort.
I could declare it ludicrous.
But the plain fact is the A380 is in daily operation. And the laser reflectors are used regularly to measure the moon's distance. Why not do some research (no, not on YouTube) before declaring something ludicrous without any basis.
Yes, it's complicated. Aircraft design is complicated but that doesn't stop the A380 getting off the ground.
-
With regards to the Telegraph story in that video;
Here's what the presentation rocks looked like - mounted on wood frames, with explanatory plaques, with a small grain set in perspex or similar;
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Norway_Apollo_11_display.jpg/220px-Norway_Apollo_11_display.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Hawaii_Apollo_11-9in_display.jpg/220px-Hawaii_Apollo_11-9in_display.jpg)
(https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAyNC80MDIvb3JpZ2luYWwvYWxhc2thLW1vb24tcm9ja3MuanBn)
Here's what was claimed to be the 'fake' in a matching press article;
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/27/article-0-063396B8000005DC-918_468x409.jpg)
at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209445/Fake-dutch-moon-rock-causes-embarrassment-museum.html
Please note;
There's nothing on the card to link it to the rock it is pictured with.
There's nothing on the card to say that any of the astronauts actually presented anyone with anything, merely that the presentation was to commemorate the astronauts' visit to Holland
There's nothing on the card which suggests a lunar sample was actually presented with the card.
etc
Conclusion; sloppy filing by the Dutch.
-
This is quite a good site which addresses most of the common conspiracy theory claims
https://spacecentre.co.uk/blog-post/know-moon-landing-really-happened/
-
What is so impossible, or ludicrous, about firing a laser at the moon, and receiving photons back from the reflector?
There would be nothing about the whole story that would strike you as such...
Sorry, I no longer believe fairy tales...
-
Let's see. First bit, who is this man and why should I trust anything he has to say, especially when he is shown to not understand some of the basics of an environment without atmosphere when discussing moon dust in the cups of the lander. Why would the dust be billowing upwards? There's not air to be poofed about on landing and make dust clouds. Forces work very differently in an airless environment.
i.e., ignore your eyes when things went poof on the takeoff of the LM from the surface though..ignore your eyes when dust was strewn about by the lunar rover...
Jesus, the hypocrisy exhibited by you NASA shills is never ending...
Second part, appears to have only been covered by a handful of news agencies, and is one of over 100 rocks that have gone missing in some manner. Hardly all that noteworthy for a rock that changed hands a few times to turn up as a fake at it's final destination.
i.e., "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
The next little bit is any of a good handful of things. Without more footage or other showings to discount things like film degradation or lens issues, it's impossible to say just what is actually going on.
Ah yes, the 'black void' vs 'lots of stars' discussion. As though it's not possible for two people to experience the exact same thing and come away with very different ideas of what happened, or that it's easily possible neither are lying, depending upon where they are. On the moon the Earth will dominate much of the sky, saturating things and certainly drawing your eye. In the ISS you're there for a very long time, able to relax and observe things far more often and longer. Is it any wonder the two have very different memories of their time in space in regards to the sky?
Just another clickbait video with little to no actual substance to it.
Another massive fail of an apologetic...
Highly trained individuals these supposed astronauts were and the "memory lapses," and the differing stories is not something to be brushed aside or so easily explained away...
-
No, my argument is the claim is absolutely ludicrous and anyone who believes that claim will buy the Brooklyn Bridge if approached by a salesman.
But that isn't an argument at all.
Your personal incredulity about something is not a valid argument against it.
As I said elsewhere, I could pour scorn on the idea that an aircraft weighing over 500 tonnes could get off the ground, much less transport people thousands of miles in comfort.
I could declare it ludicrous.
But the plain fact is the A380 is in daily operation. And the laser reflectors are used regularly to measure the moon's distance. Why not do some research (no, not on YouTube) before declaring something ludicrous without any basis.
Yes, it's complicated. Aircraft design is complicated but that doesn't stop the A380 getting off the ground.
Your analogy fails as the plane is clearly visible and size is clearly not a hindrance in regard to flight.
Generating the necessary lift is the only obstacle in the way.
I do not need to do "research" into whether or not the act of firing a laser at a moving object purportedly a quarter of a million miles away is a ludicrous proposition, let alone the claims of receiving and measuring reflected "photons," is also ludicrous.
It is patently ludicrous on its face.
-
i.e., ignore your eyes when things went poof on the takeoff of the LM from the surface though..
....and all that went 'poof' was rocket exhaust and debris from the TOP of the descent stage. Everything went straight outward from there, and the only thing left to observe the result was the video camera on the lunar rover. So even IF anything landed in the footpads, we would have nothing left there to see it. All photos of the footpads were taken during EVAs
-
Your analogy fails as the plane is clearly visible and size is clearly not a hindrance in regard to flight.
Well, if I were to follow the FE/conspiracy theory mindset I'd simply declare all photos and video of an A380 fake and call all the people who claim to have seen or travelled on one liars.
I think that's how this works?
If you think that light leaves the sun, bounces off the moon and that's why we see the moon then you believe the basic idea that light can bounce off the moon with enough power to be observed on earth.
So why the idea that a powerful laser can do the same with a specially placed reflector is ludicrous remains a mystery.
But again, you thinking it so is not an argument.
-
Along with not knowing the shape of the Earth, you don't understand monetary systems either. Printing more money - great idea!!
I understand that is how governments operate. They simply continue to devalue their own currencies for the most part and have no trouble doing so.
I also know I clearly pointed the massive failure of your analysis the government went "bankrupt," or if there was any true consequence to their spending policies.
Yes, please ignore the past 20 years and focus solely on Putin's regime. This is very FEH of you - ignore all evidence that doesn't support your hypothesis. Russia was a case study in how bad Capitalism with corruption can be. I've been around long enough to remember the cold war. I know how it played out.
For someone claiming to know how the Cold War played out, you sure exhibit a massive amount of ignorance.
Every election held since the fall of the USSR has generally offered nothing but candidates from the former Politburo/KGB/former USSR agencies...
Kinda like The Who, "We Won't Get Fooled Again..."
-
I understand that is how governments operate. They simply continue to devalue their own currencies for the most part and have no trouble doing so.
Yeah, you clearly don't. Devaluing your currency by printing more money has massive consequences.
Every election held since the fall of the USSR has generally offered nothing but candidates from the former Politburo/KGB/former USSR agencies...
Those were the politicians of the time. Of course they were the ones being elected. That doesn't mean the same controls/policies were in place. Are you implying life didn't radically change in Russia after the fall of the USSR?
-
In regards to the technology to go to the moon, "we lost it". Yes it was safely contained in our Dennis the Menace lunch pail when the latch flew open and the tech spilled on the neighbors grassy knoll. Lassie unfortunately ate it, the old dog ate my report trick.
Crosshairs missing or in front of lunar photos, temperatures to destroy a camera or a paper space suit, no crater on landing, no dust on lander legs, wires propping jumping nuts back up, cellphones the size of an ammo box tech, no no no the list is soo long and the evil side has failed to convince the masses any longer. No lunar landing proves flat earth again and the creator God. The evil at the government level is far greater than drug crazed mass shooters.
I don't remember going thru the Van Belt, it was a studio lot no less.
-
I understand that is how governments operate. They simply continue to devalue their own currencies for the most part and have no trouble doing so.
Yeah, you clearly don't. Devaluing your currency by printing more money has massive consequences.
Who pays the consequences?
The people in power?
Think again, Copernicus...
Every election held since the fall of the USSR has generally offered nothing but candidates from the former Politburo/KGB/former USSR agencies...
Those were the politicians of the time. Of course they were the ones being elected. That doesn't mean the same controls/policies were in place. Are you implying life didn't radically change in Russia after the fall of the USSR?
Yeah, most people think life was better then...
God, you are dense.
You have provided absolutely ZERO substance or any coherent support to the idea of the US and USSR being these supposed "mortal enemies..."
All of it was a gigantic ruse foisted upon the populace of both countries.
-
In regards to the technology to go to the moon, "we lost it".
Yup. Every piece of the Apollo craft that was launched from Earth was disposable, apart from the Command Module. It got destroyed in the process of carrying out the missions. The last Apollo mission was in 1972, and some hardware in the pipeline was used to launch Skylab. After that the production lines were shut down, and the subcontractors moved on to other projects. What would you expect to have been kept since the early 1970s?
Crosshairs missing or in front of lunar photos
Emulsion bleed
temperatures to destroy a camera or a paper space suit
There is no temperature around the camera. All that can happen is that the camera heats up when directly exposed to Sunlight. The astronauts moved around on the surface. Sometimes the camera was in Sun, sometimes not. When it is, it heats up, when it is not, it cools. The suits were not made out of paper
no crater on landing, no dust on lander legs
Can't you see the contradiction in what you claim here? First you want the engine to be powerful enough to make a crater, but in the same sentence you want it weak enough that it leaves the regolith on the landing legs or footpads. You cannot have it both ways. The two results are mutually exclusive.
cellphones the size of an ammo box tech
Apollo didn't use 'cellphones'. they used a point-to-point radio link
I don't remember going thru the Van Belt, it was a studio lot no less.
Why would the astronauts note it in particular? What effect do you think should have been seen or felt by them?
-
Yup. Every piece of the Apollo craft that was launched from Earth was disposable, apart from the Command Module. It got destroyed in the process of carrying out the missions. The last Apollo mission was in 1972, and some hardware in the pipeline was used to launch Skylab. After that the production lines were shut down, and the subcontractors moved on to other projects. What would you expect to have been kept since the early 1970s?[/color]
You do not dispose of the amount of information claimed to have been lost relating to the most important mission in the history of mankind.
Emulsion bleed
Horse hockey.
There is no temperature around the camera. All that can happen is that the camera heats up when directly exposed to Sunlight. The astronauts moved around on the surface. Sometimes the camera was in Sun, sometimes not. When it is, it heats up, when it is not, it cools. The suits were not made out of paper
That is right.
When they heat up, it heats up. There is no "slowly warming..." in place here or in question.
Can't you see the contradiction in what you claim here? First you want the engine to be powerful enough to make a crater, but in the same sentence you want it weak enough that it leaves the regolith on the landing legs or footpads. You cannot have it both ways. The two results are mutually exclusive.
No, they are not.
There would have been a crater from the exhaust and it would been ejected straight up with no influence from wind or other weather phenomena. Once the legs got low enough to the ground, then the landing pads would have held any dust inside due to their shape.
Why would the astronauts note it in particular? What effect do you think should have been seen or felt by them?
LMMFAO!!!
This is the best response you can come up with when it comes to the question as to why the astronauts would make note of the Van Allen Belts?
Jesus, that is freaking hilarious!!!
Perfect disingenuous shill 101 tactics...
-
There is a "spare" Saturn V in the Kennedy Space Centre.
It's not a replica, it was left over from one of the later missions which was cancelled
-
You do not dispose of the amount of information claimed to have been lost relating to the most important mission in the history of mankind.
Yes, there's plenty of information resulting from the missions, but no tooling or production lines to repeat the exercise. Which is where Orion comes in
There is no temperature around the camera. All that can happen is that the camera heats up when directly exposed to Sunlight. The astronauts moved around on the surface. Sometimes the camera was in Sun, sometimes not. When it is, it heats up, when it is not, it cools. The suits were not made out of paper
That is right.
When they heat up, it heats up. There is no "slowly warming..." in place here or in question.
The surface of the Moon heats up at around 2 or 3 degrees per hour. Why would a camera heat up any quicker?
Can't you see the contradiction in what you claim here? First you want the engine to be powerful enough to make a crater, but in the same sentence you want it weak enough that it leaves the regolith on the landing legs or footpads. You cannot have it both ways. The two results are mutually exclusive.
No, they are not.
There would have been a crater from the exhaust and it would been ejected straight up with no influence from wind or other weather phenomena. Once the legs got low enough to the ground, then the landing pads would have held any dust inside due to their shape.
Why would the regolith be driven "straight up"? Surely that would carry it into the exhaust or the base of the craft? How would that happen? Why would regolith being driven at hundreds or thousands of MPH fall into the pads? It would go straight past them
This is the best response you can come up with when it comes to the question as to why the astronauts would make note of the Van Allen Belts?
So you can't say if they would have seen or felt the VABs from within the craft, then?
-
Who pays the consequences?
The people in power?
Think again, Copernicus...
Copernicus...oh brother. Lemme guess, all of this is tied to the Illuminati? And yes, the people in power would pay the most. They may not feel pain in the same way as someone on the lower end of the SE ladder, but their money would buy them less. Of course, none of this is relevant unless you can prove the USSR had an overly loose monetary policy.
Yeah, most people think life was better then...
God, you are dense.
Actually, I know many of the older generation preferred life under communism and wanted to go back to it. Capitalism failed in Russia due to extreme corruption. You should be careful with the personal attacks - would hate to see you catch another ban.
You have provided absolutely ZERO substance or any coherent support to the idea of the US and USSR being these supposed "mortal enemies..."
All of it was a gigantic ruse foisted upon the populace of both countries.
LOL - zero evidence?? I don't need to provide evidence of the cold war, it is documented history. Wars were fought, trillions of dollars spent, untold lives lost - these things happened. The burden is upon you to show it was a ruse, and you've shown nothing at all beyond unsubstantiated claims. Got any proof beyond the typical conspiracy nut job stuff?
Also, we are starting to get too far off topic. Start another thread and I'd be glad to continue, but I'm done with this one.
-
What is so impossible, or ludicrous, about firing a laser at the moon, and receiving photons back from the reflector?
There would be nothing about the whole story that would strike you as such...
Sorry, I no longer believe fairy tales...
That's not what I asked for. I asked what is so ludicrous, as you stated, about firing a laser at the moon and receiving photons back?
-
In regards to the technology to go to the moon, "we lost it". Yes it was safely contained in our Dennis the Menace lunch pail when the latch flew open and the tech spilled on the neighbors grassy knoll. Lassie unfortunately ate it, the old dog ate my report trick.
Crosshairs missing or in front of lunar photos, temperatures to destroy a camera or a paper space suit, no crater on landing, no dust on lander legs, wires propping jumping nuts back up, cellphones the size of an ammo box tech, no no no the list is soo long and the evil side has failed to convince the masses any longer. No lunar landing proves flat earth again and the creator God. The evil at the government level is far greater than drug crazed mass shooters.
I don't remember going thru the Van Belt, it was a studio lot no less.
There's a lot wrong with this.
1. We did not "lose" the tech to go to the moon. It still exists and we are building new crafts (Orion) to go on new rockets (SLS). We simply lost the tech to make the Saturn V. Why? Well, when 50 years pass and something goes unused during that entire time, the technology usually changes. We don't make the parts that go in the Saturn V anymore. We don't make the machines to make those parts anymore. We DO make parts for other rockets though, and that's what we're doing.
2. Crosshairs are not missing or in front of objects. It's a simple effect of exposure. In better photos that were recently scanned you can see that the crosshairs appear. Compare these photos:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Apollo_11_1998_scan_cropped.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Apollo_11_2004_scan_cropped.jpg/134px-Apollo_11_2004_scan_cropped.jpg)
The first photo is an older, poorer quality scan of the original photo film. It is caused by overexposure, where the bright white areas "bleed" over the dark, thin crosshair. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inches thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it, so it is not that difficult for the white part to obscure the crosshair.
3. The temperatures would not destroy the camera or the suits. First, the suits are not made of paper. They're made with multi-layered fabrics. Take a look at this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_A7L#Basic_design. Next, the temperatures out not destroy the camera. The moon does not have an atmosphere to "bind" lunar surface heat to the cameras or other objects that are not in direct contact with the surface. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as the method of heat transfer. Heat from the sun would've radiated to the moon and heated up the objects, BUT, because we know how radiative heat works, we can prevent it. The cameras used passive optical coatings and paints, along with layers of mylar and other metals to control the temperature and reflect radiative heat. The LM used the same technique. That's why it is covered in layers of aluminized mylar (the gold stuff). The suits are the same way. The only way heat could've transferred to the suits was by radiative heat from the sun, or conductive heat from the surface, but only when the suit touched the surface. The suits had a reflective layer inside that kept the sun's radiative heat out of the suits, so radiative heat would not have burned the suits or the astronauts. Conduction wouldn't have worked either because the surface was not that hot. Let me explain.
I know that you constantly see sites online saying the moon's surface is 250F in daylight and -250F in darkness, and while this is true, it only applies to when the surface is in lunar noon, or lunar midnight. All Apollo missions landed shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing sight. One day on the moon is 29.5 earth days, so it's a bit less than 15 hours on the moon from sunrise to sunset. Because the sun was not directly shining down on the surface, the surface was not being heated as much. It's like on earth. During sunrise on Earth, the ground is not as hot because the sun is not directly shining on the surface. As the sun moves directly overhead in the sky, the ground temp gradually increases. It's the same on the moon. The surface temperature on the moon never hit 250F while astronauts were there. Longer missions, like 15-17, did notice increased loads on their suits' cooling systems, though, but the effect was cancelled out by the passive and active cooling systems.
4. There shouldn't be a crater on the landing. It takes some math to explain so stay with me. The descent engine of the LM had a max thrust of 10,000 lbf (pound force). The engines, as the LMs were landing, were not at 10,000 lbf of thrust, but more like 3,000. The nozzle of the descent engine had a diameter of 54 inches, so it had an exit area of 2290 in2. 3000/2290 is about 1.5 pounds per square inch. This means, from the exit of the engine nozzle, the engine was putting out a pressure of 1.5 psi onto the surface of the moon. A human footprint has a greater pressure than the engine (a size 10 shoe (https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/studyhere/documents/pdf/educationaladvisors/shoeprintworksheet.pdf) has an area of about 205 cm2, or 31 in2. If you have a 170 lb man, wearing 2 shoes, then 170/62 is 2.75 psi, almost 2 times greater than the engine).
Now, we're not done. In a vacuum, gasses expand, so the pressure of the exhaust from the engine was even less by the time it reached the surface. The engine shut off a few meters above the surface, and the LM dropped the rest of the way in free fall. Because the engine was not directly on the surface when it shut off, the surface was experiencing less than the 1.5 psi. This is enough to blow dust around, but is not enough to break away the lunar regolith, making a crater. Dust WAS blown around. The descent videos show streaks of dust blowing from under the LM just as it was landing, and the astronauts acknowledged there was dust (Aldrin even said "kicking up some dust"). Photos of the engine on the surface also show streaks radiating away from the engine on the surface, indicating that dust was blown.
5. Why should there be dust on the legs? It would have been blown away before the legs reached the surface, as I said above. The dust on the surface wouldn't billow, because there's no atmosphere. It would just move in a straight line away from where the engine is pointing.
6. There is no evidence of wires. The videos showing "wires" pulling up astronauts after they fall are ridiculous, because the astronaut is either only pushing himself up, or leaning on an object or the other astronaut. Wires would have been very visible on the surface, and would be reflecting a lot of sun light. They would have also made shadows on the surface, yet no shadows exist.
7. Not sure what you mean by cellphones.
8. Not sure how no lunar landing could prove flat earth. Earth could still be round. Also not sure how no landing means god is real.
9. We didn't go through the Van Allen Belts. We went above them.
-
Any and all science or evidence aside, and there are mountains of evidence that the landing happened. The single greatest proof that the moon landings happened, specifically Apollo 11, lies with the Soviet Union. It's 1969, tensions are high, the US and the Soviet Union are engaged in a stiff Space Race. The Soviets put the first satellite in space, even the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, my hero. These 2 achievements were huge, the US was losing the race, however, they could still win. How you ask? Put the first man on the moon. The moon was the holy grail, whoever put a man on the moon effectively won the Space Race. Fast forward to July 20th 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are walking on the moon, Michael Collins is in Lunar orbit manning the Columbia module. The entire world is watching....an unprecedented 600,000,000 people, Soviets included, watched as human beings set foot on the moon, a massive victory for the United States, and a terrible embarrassment for the Soviet Union. Apollo 11 won the US the Space Race, the Soviet Union spent a tremendous amount of money on it's space program, which eventually contributed to the state's collapse in 1992. My biggest problem with the conspiracy theory is that the Soviet Union had satellites in both Earth and Lunar orbits, they could track Apollo 11 from Cape Canaveral all the way to the landing in the Sea of Tranquility. If Apollo 11 took place in a movie studio, the Soviets would know, so why didn't they call bullshit on the US? Exposing the conspiracy would be a devastating (understatement) blow to the US, no man, woman or child would ever trust the US government again, it'd be a colossal defeat, the Soviets would be able to take the Space Race Golden Trophy from Nixon and take it back to the Kremlin, drinking vodka and eating caviar all night long. Why were they silent if it actually were a hoax? Why wouldn't the Soviets say a word? The only reason the Soviet's wouldn't speak up is because there was no reason to, the US put 2 men on the moon that day and they knew it. *mic drop*
Another proponent of the "Cold War," narrative, believer in children assuming the position of safety under their desks in case of nuclear attack...LOLOLOLOL!!!
Come on, dude...get REAL!
The Cold War was a big fraud!
Both the US and Russia are totalitarian regimes and all the people in charge care about is maintaining control over the people.
How many people beside yourself do you personally know trust the government when it comes to honest and transparent reporting?
Well, not to mention it couldn't have been faked, as there are retro-reflectors on the surface of the moon. How would those get there without humans
shooting a rocket up into space and placing them? Do you think they just grew out of the ground?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment)
I think we're done here.
Yea right, If you want to rally know why the USSR hasn't said anything. We threatened them. We obviously have the far greater military. If you were them would you have shut up if the US threatened you? Just food for thought
-
Any and all science or evidence aside, and there are mountains of evidence that the landing happened. The single greatest proof that the moon landings happened, specifically Apollo 11, lies with the Soviet Union. It's 1969, tensions are high, the US and the Soviet Union are engaged in a stiff Space Race. The Soviets put the first satellite in space, even the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, my hero. These 2 achievements were huge, the US was losing the race, however, they could still win. How you ask? Put the first man on the moon. The moon was the holy grail, whoever put a man on the moon effectively won the Space Race. Fast forward to July 20th 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are walking on the moon, Michael Collins is in Lunar orbit manning the Columbia module. The entire world is watching....an unprecedented 600,000,000 people, Soviets included, watched as human beings set foot on the moon, a massive victory for the United States, and a terrible embarrassment for the Soviet Union. Apollo 11 won the US the Space Race, the Soviet Union spent a tremendous amount of money on it's space program, which eventually contributed to the state's collapse in 1992. My biggest problem with the conspiracy theory is that the Soviet Union had satellites in both Earth and Lunar orbits, they could track Apollo 11 from Cape Canaveral all the way to the landing in the Sea of Tranquility. If Apollo 11 took place in a movie studio, the Soviets would know, so why didn't they call bullshit on the US? Exposing the conspiracy would be a devastating (understatement) blow to the US, no man, woman or child would ever trust the US government again, it'd be a colossal defeat, the Soviets would be able to take the Space Race Golden Trophy from Nixon and take it back to the Kremlin, drinking vodka and eating caviar all night long. Why were they silent if it actually were a hoax? Why wouldn't the Soviets say a word? The only reason the Soviet's wouldn't speak up is because there was no reason to, the US put 2 men on the moon that day and they knew it. *mic drop*
Another proponent of the "Cold War," narrative, believer in children assuming the position of safety under their desks in case of nuclear attack...LOLOLOLOL!!!
Come on, dude...get REAL!
The Cold War was a big fraud!
Both the US and Russia are totalitarian regimes and all the people in charge care about is maintaining control over the people.
How many people beside yourself do you personally know trust the government when it comes to honest and transparent reporting?
Well, not to mention it couldn't have been faked, as there are retro-reflectors on the surface of the moon. How would those get there without humans
shooting a rocket up into space and placing them? Do you think they just grew out of the ground?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment)
I think we're done here.
Yea right, If you want to rally know why the USSR hasn't said anything. We threatened them. We obviously have the far greater military. If you were them would you have shut up if the US threatened you? Just food for thought
We didn't have a far greater military than the USSR during the cold war. If we did, there wouldn't have been a cold war.
-
Yea right, If you want to rally know why the USSR hasn't said anything. We threatened them. We obviously have the far greater military. If you were them would you have shut up if the US threatened you? Just food for thought
LOL - this is ridiculous. The USSR was at least on par with the US throughout much of the cold war. It could easily be argued that they had a superior military given their numerical advantages. It is unlikely the US could have won a conventional war with the USSR. And I'm not biased towards Russia, I was born in the good ole US of A. Russia would have had a field day if the Earth was flat. What were we going to do, get ourselves nuked over something stupid????
-
Do you guys trust TIME as a reliable source?
-
Oh, the reflectors on the moon...
Been watching a little too much of TBBT...
How are you realistically going to fire a laser at the moon, hit these reflectors and then target receptors back here on Earth?
that is the biggest pile of BS I have ever read offered as "proof."
You argue from a position of frustration brought on by the lack of ability to visualize and understand.
Why not find a way of dealing with that? Expand your horizons and intellect. Your life would be greatly improved.
-
Im going to be honest here, i can't directly prove the Moon landings happened on my own, but that doesn't instantly mean its a hoax.
I have never been to Tuvalu before, and there is a high chance any of you have been there, i have only seen pictures of the island, wich could have easily been taken somewhere else, and if i go there, and hop on some kind of boat-tour, i could easily be taken to another island, and not Tuvalu, without noticing. Does that mean its some kind of fake government lie? No, just because i can't directly prove you something doesn't mean it doesn't exists. Landing on the Moon takes it to another level, sure, but if you actually RESEARCH the Apollo Moon landings, and RESEARCH the basics of rocketry and spaceflight, it doesn't sound all that ridiculous. And no, researching basic rocket science isn't going through an indoctrination process, because most of the little itsy bits of the technology used in spaceflight can be tested at home or by amateurs.
I also think its kind of funny how most Moon Landing/Space "Debunks" mostly just point out the things in the Video or Photographic footage, that were different from their expectations. A great example of this is the "No stars" phenomenon. Just because you EXPECT there would be stars hanging around, doesn't mean there HAS to be stars hanging around.
In rare cases people go outside the "this visual looks fake!" comfort bubble, you notice that they either refuse to research their own arguments and jump straight to conclusions or that faking a Moon landing is more complicated than doing a Moon landing for real.
-
One aspect of the lunar landings that seems to have been missed here is the behaviour of the dust on the moon. It has been years since I've viewed footage of the astronauts on the lunar surface but there is one particular detail that struck me about the lunar dust. As the astronauts gamboled about they kicked up dust. That dust then settled back to the surface, just as one would suppose it might here on earth. The major difference is that it ALL settled back on the surface (a bit slower than we're used to seeing it happen here due to the lower gravitational force), large particles, medium sized particles, small particles and tiny particles, all settling simultaneously. There was never a dust cloud left behind after the larger particles had settled as would happen here on earth, in the presence of an atmosphere.
Why? Because there was no atmosphere with which the tiniest particles could interact, remaining suspended for a longer period that did the larger particles. This isn't proof that that footage was taken on the moon, but it is proof that there was no atmosphere in the place that those scenes were shot.
So, now the deniers need only go out and find a large sound stage which can be successfully evacuated of the great majority of its atmosphere and they will have an arguing point.
And totallackey - yes, you do need to research how a small reflector on a moving target can be hit with a laser and photons received back from it. I think it's just about time you did a bit of research of some kind. People tend to lend more credence to an argument when it is backed by more than a simple denial and absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of the subject at hand. Just repeatedly crying FAKE or IMPOSSIBLE doesn't help your case one tiny bit.
-
I could pour scorn on the idea that an aircraft weighing over 500 tonnes could get off the ground, much less transport people thousands of miles in comfort.
I could declare it ludicrous.
Your analogy fails as the plane is clearly visible and size is clearly not a hindrance in regard to flight.
Generating the necessary lift is the only obstacle in the way.
I do not need to do "research" into whether or not the act of firing a laser at a moving object purportedly a quarter of a million miles away is a ludicrous proposition, let alone the claims of receiving and measuring reflected "photons," is also ludicrous.
It is patently ludicrous on its face.
Let Empirically determine if "ludicrous" is true:
* I can fire a laser yes/no - yes
* I can fire a laser at an object a certain distance away yes/no - yes
* I can fire a laser at a moving object and track it yes/no - yes
* I can measure reflected photons yes/no - yes
None of this goes against FE empirical evidence, so to call it 'ludicrous' is simply far fetched and you're doing FE theory not much good. Please post intelligently if you want to contribute to the cause.