The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Ok, this is an article taken from www.telegraph.co.uk.
It's a bit long, so I'm going to put it in the next post, so it's not on the same page twice.
Bacially, I think it's quite interesing, but I don't really understand *all* of the technical details.
It's certaonly interesting that NASA is at least taking it seriously, but a multi-generation journy?
You start off on it, knowing that you'll die before you get there? That you'll die on the spaceship, away from the majority of your friends and family? No thanks.
But maybe you think differently?
Have a read and let me know.
It's a bit long, so I'm going to put it in the next post, so it's not on the same page twice.
Bacially, I think it's quite interesing, but I don't really understand *all* of the technical details.
It's certaonly interesting that NASA is at least taking it seriously, but a multi-generation journy?
You start off on it, knowing that you'll die before you get there? That you'll die on the spaceship, away from the majority of your friends and family? No thanks.
But maybe you think differently?
Have a read and let me know.
Page:
And a few more...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Hope you didnt pay much for that book....
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Hope you didnt pay much for that book....
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
>All of the issues you raise are addressed in the book. If >you don't
> want to buy it, I'm willing to send you my copy when I'm >finished with it!
:) No thanks, I gave up on all this conspiracy/alien rubbish a few years back.
What does the book say about the Russians? America bribed them into silence ?
On the Chernobyl point - yes they coukd have benefitted, but Russia owns very little nuclear emergency equipment, and its mostly based in and around Moscow, not in places like Chernobyl. America's NEST teams wear lightweight protective gear proofed for close exposure to radiation.
The space shuttle never leaving low orbit is because of its design brief. It's designed for payloads, not transporting people into space.
Finally visit http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
One page is basically debunking everything that so called book claims.
>All of the issues you raise are addressed in the book. If >you don't
> want to buy it, I'm willing to send you my copy when I'm >finished with it!
:) No thanks, I gave up on all this conspiracy/alien rubbish a few years back.
What does the book say about the Russians? America bribed them into silence ?
On the Chernobyl point - yes they coukd have benefitted, but Russia owns very little nuclear emergency equipment, and its mostly based in and around Moscow, not in places like Chernobyl. America's NEST teams wear lightweight protective gear proofed for close exposure to radiation.
The space shuttle never leaving low orbit is because of its design brief. It's designed for payloads, not transporting people into space.
Finally visit http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
One page is basically debunking everything that so called book claims.
Belldandy wrote:
> It may be rather hard to have smoke when there's no air eh?
From http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count2.htm
"Hypergolic propellants are fuels and oxidizers which ignite on contact with each other and need no ignition source. This easy start and restart capability makes them attractive for both manned and unmanned spacecraft maneuvering systems. Another plus is their storability — they do not have the extreme temperature requirements of cryogenics.
The fuel is monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and the oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4).
Hydrazine is a clear, nitrogen/hydrogen compound with a "fishy" smell. It is similar to ammonia. Nitrogen tetroxide is a reddish fluid. It has a pungent, sweetish smell. Both fluids are highly toxic, and are handled under the most stringent safety conditions. Hypergolic propellants are used in the core liquid propellant stages of the Titan family of launch vehicles, and on the second stage of the Delta.
The Space Shuttle orbiter uses hypergols in its Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem (OMS) for orbital insertion, major orbital maneuvers and deorbit. The Reaction Control System (RCS) uses hypergols for attitude control.
The efficiency of the MMH/N2O4 combination in the Space Shuttle orbiter ranges from 260 to 280 seconds in the RCS, to 313 seconds in the OMS. The higher efficiency of the OMS system is attributed to higher expansion ratios in the nozzles and higher pressures in the combustion chambers."
The Shuttle uses the same type of fuel for its thrusters as the LM did - and when shuttle thrusters fire, you can see the 'smoke' for as long as the thrusters fire. There was no such indication in the video of the ascent module lifting off.
> Not really, the size of the lense used is the real factor in
> that shot
These were standard cameras with no extra fittings due to the weight limitations imposed. In fact, they were stripped-down cameras with the minimum of controls. No lense changes were made from photo to photo. In fact, with the thick fingers of the pressurised space suits of the time, it is barely all they could do to press the shutter release. The authors have thoroughly researched the cameras used, and it is also remarkable that every photo was incredibly in focus.
As you are a budding photographer, maybe you can explain the lighting of some of the shots? With no reflectors, and with light trabelling in a straight line, how is it that the United States sign on the side of the LM in complete shadow can be read, while all other detail is in complete darkness? What is the mysterious light source in on astronauts visor in one photo, when the sun was behind him and no flashes were taken? In that same photo, why can you clearly see all the detail on the front of the astronauts suit, when it should be pitch black? Why in some photos is there detail on astronaut's suits, while the rocks of the landscape are in total darkness? Why is there a clearly visible fall-off in the lighting in all photos? Why do there appear to be flash 'hot-spots' in many of the photos?
Just some of the questions the book asks that photo experts cannot explain, *unless* the photos were staged in some kind of studio.
> Considering the astroanuts had never been on the moon
> before they didn't know what to expect totally, and their
> position in the lander module means that they couldn't have seen the surface
> below them anyway
In which case, how did they get the film of the previous unmanned module as they landed?
> if they expected a large cloud of dust then the lack of air
> makes that not possible.
Not a cloud, no - but the thrust from 10,000lbs of thrust would certainly disturb dust - air or not.
> "seemed" to be a tan colour is vague
That's what the astronauts said, not the authors.
> and I doubt even NASA's paint survives exiting atmosphere
Exiting atmosphere isn't a problem - it's re-entry that strips paint. No atmosphere on the moon, though.
> Its contradictions - supposedly these Astronauts never
> went to the moon, yet this is picking over details of
> what they reported on the moon..... with a real
> conspiracy no inconsistencies would be expected.
Exactly what NASA would no doubt have hoped. It's so fantastic, people will *have* to believe it.
This is picking over details of what they reported while *allegedly* on the moon. There are too many inaccuracies and inconsistencies for it to be a genuine report of what is supposedly mankinds finest acheivment.
>A lot of points are raised by supposedly EX Nasa official
These are *not* 'supposedly' ex-NASA - they are the real people, who it is known actually worked for NASA at the time of the moon landings, according to NASA's own records.
> and this plugs straight into the mass X files fan base
> that believes anything written on paper in front of
> them.
Because the X-Files was written for such people. The doubters have been around for far longer than the X-Files. I'm 30 years old, and I first had doubts in my late teens - the X-Files wasn't even around then!
> Books aren't always fact...
Nor is TV. Remember that next time you watch a re-run of the moon landing!
The scientific facts presented in this book are irrefutable. And some of the 'mission' facts are interesting, too. Did you know that Armstrong over-shot the intended landing zone by around 1,000 feet? According to the LM specs released by NASA, this meant that they didn't have enough fuel to get back?
> The shielding issue is again only being agued primarily by the mysterious
> "John Maudlin".
It is scientific fact that the shielding on the LM (again according to NASA's own specs) was woefully inadequate to protect human life beyond the Van Allen belt.
> they didnt because no one was prepared for Chernobyl.
That doesn't mean that the rescuers and clean-up teams couldn't have benefited from it if such miraculous shielding is available.
> its all the same facts repeated.
Exactly. The same *facts* repeated - none of which actually support the idea of man walking on the moon.
> It happened and thats the truth
Based on what? Because NASA say so? Despite all the indications, scientific and otherwise, that it would be virtually impossible today, let alone in the 60's?
Why does the shuttle never leave low earth orbit? Why is the International Space Station being built in low Earth orbit? Radiation. The book details *known and proven* effects of the various types of radiation on the human body. Worst-case scenario of GCR (Galactic Cosmic Radiation) would see a human dead in 30 seconds, even behind several feet of shielding. The LM had nowhere near that amount.
> maybe those who don't believe just can't believe
> humankind is actually capable of something great ?
Maybe those who do believe are simply scared of the implications that being lied to over the event would have?
All of the issues you raise are addressed in the book. If you don't want to buy it, I'm willing to send you my copy when I'm finished with it!
> It may be rather hard to have smoke when there's no air eh?
From http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count2.htm
"Hypergolic propellants are fuels and oxidizers which ignite on contact with each other and need no ignition source. This easy start and restart capability makes them attractive for both manned and unmanned spacecraft maneuvering systems. Another plus is their storability — they do not have the extreme temperature requirements of cryogenics.
The fuel is monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and the oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4).
Hydrazine is a clear, nitrogen/hydrogen compound with a "fishy" smell. It is similar to ammonia. Nitrogen tetroxide is a reddish fluid. It has a pungent, sweetish smell. Both fluids are highly toxic, and are handled under the most stringent safety conditions. Hypergolic propellants are used in the core liquid propellant stages of the Titan family of launch vehicles, and on the second stage of the Delta.
The Space Shuttle orbiter uses hypergols in its Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem (OMS) for orbital insertion, major orbital maneuvers and deorbit. The Reaction Control System (RCS) uses hypergols for attitude control.
The efficiency of the MMH/N2O4 combination in the Space Shuttle orbiter ranges from 260 to 280 seconds in the RCS, to 313 seconds in the OMS. The higher efficiency of the OMS system is attributed to higher expansion ratios in the nozzles and higher pressures in the combustion chambers."
The Shuttle uses the same type of fuel for its thrusters as the LM did - and when shuttle thrusters fire, you can see the 'smoke' for as long as the thrusters fire. There was no such indication in the video of the ascent module lifting off.
> Not really, the size of the lense used is the real factor in
> that shot
These were standard cameras with no extra fittings due to the weight limitations imposed. In fact, they were stripped-down cameras with the minimum of controls. No lense changes were made from photo to photo. In fact, with the thick fingers of the pressurised space suits of the time, it is barely all they could do to press the shutter release. The authors have thoroughly researched the cameras used, and it is also remarkable that every photo was incredibly in focus.
As you are a budding photographer, maybe you can explain the lighting of some of the shots? With no reflectors, and with light trabelling in a straight line, how is it that the United States sign on the side of the LM in complete shadow can be read, while all other detail is in complete darkness? What is the mysterious light source in on astronauts visor in one photo, when the sun was behind him and no flashes were taken? In that same photo, why can you clearly see all the detail on the front of the astronauts suit, when it should be pitch black? Why in some photos is there detail on astronaut's suits, while the rocks of the landscape are in total darkness? Why is there a clearly visible fall-off in the lighting in all photos? Why do there appear to be flash 'hot-spots' in many of the photos?
Just some of the questions the book asks that photo experts cannot explain, *unless* the photos were staged in some kind of studio.
> Considering the astroanuts had never been on the moon
> before they didn't know what to expect totally, and their
> position in the lander module means that they couldn't have seen the surface
> below them anyway
In which case, how did they get the film of the previous unmanned module as they landed?
> if they expected a large cloud of dust then the lack of air
> makes that not possible.
Not a cloud, no - but the thrust from 10,000lbs of thrust would certainly disturb dust - air or not.
> "seemed" to be a tan colour is vague
That's what the astronauts said, not the authors.
> and I doubt even NASA's paint survives exiting atmosphere
Exiting atmosphere isn't a problem - it's re-entry that strips paint. No atmosphere on the moon, though.
> Its contradictions - supposedly these Astronauts never
> went to the moon, yet this is picking over details of
> what they reported on the moon..... with a real
> conspiracy no inconsistencies would be expected.
Exactly what NASA would no doubt have hoped. It's so fantastic, people will *have* to believe it.
This is picking over details of what they reported while *allegedly* on the moon. There are too many inaccuracies and inconsistencies for it to be a genuine report of what is supposedly mankinds finest acheivment.
>A lot of points are raised by supposedly EX Nasa official
These are *not* 'supposedly' ex-NASA - they are the real people, who it is known actually worked for NASA at the time of the moon landings, according to NASA's own records.
> and this plugs straight into the mass X files fan base
> that believes anything written on paper in front of
> them.
Because the X-Files was written for such people. The doubters have been around for far longer than the X-Files. I'm 30 years old, and I first had doubts in my late teens - the X-Files wasn't even around then!
> Books aren't always fact...
Nor is TV. Remember that next time you watch a re-run of the moon landing!
The scientific facts presented in this book are irrefutable. And some of the 'mission' facts are interesting, too. Did you know that Armstrong over-shot the intended landing zone by around 1,000 feet? According to the LM specs released by NASA, this meant that they didn't have enough fuel to get back?
> The shielding issue is again only being agued primarily by the mysterious
> "John Maudlin".
It is scientific fact that the shielding on the LM (again according to NASA's own specs) was woefully inadequate to protect human life beyond the Van Allen belt.
> they didnt because no one was prepared for Chernobyl.
That doesn't mean that the rescuers and clean-up teams couldn't have benefited from it if such miraculous shielding is available.
> its all the same facts repeated.
Exactly. The same *facts* repeated - none of which actually support the idea of man walking on the moon.
> It happened and thats the truth
Based on what? Because NASA say so? Despite all the indications, scientific and otherwise, that it would be virtually impossible today, let alone in the 60's?
Why does the shuttle never leave low earth orbit? Why is the International Space Station being built in low Earth orbit? Radiation. The book details *known and proven* effects of the various types of radiation on the human body. Worst-case scenario of GCR (Galactic Cosmic Radiation) would see a human dead in 30 seconds, even behind several feet of shielding. The LM had nowhere near that amount.
> maybe those who don't believe just can't believe
> humankind is actually capable of something great ?
Maybe those who do believe are simply scared of the implications that being lied to over the event would have?
All of the issues you raise are addressed in the book. If you don't want to buy it, I'm willing to send you my copy when I'm finished with it!
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
The interesting thing is that all of the stages used Hypergolic fuel
> - a mixture which always, *always* leaves a trail of smoke. Yet there is no
> smoke when the ascent stage lifts off.
It may be rather hard to have smoke when there's no air eh?
>In the interview I referred to
> earlier, it was first claimed that they couldn't afford to have any smoke,
> because it would have obscured the landing. Yet the fuel used always creates
> smoke.
This could easily be confusion between the fuels use on earth and in space - no air no smoke.
>Another
> interesting fact is that, as the LM came in to land, >there is a 10-second plus
> panning shot of a previous unmanned vehicle (the name >escapes me at the moment).
> This was supposedly acheived through the small >triangular window of the LM - a
> practically impossible feat.
Not really, the size of the lense used is the real factor in that shot, not the space it was taken from. As an aircraft enthusiast I've poked my camera lense through a fences at various shows - like the one around the B2 bomber at Fairford RIAT in 2000 and produced a wide angle shot with no trace of the fence - photography was actually allowed at this event by the way, the fences were just there to stop people getting too close.
>Related to this is the fact that the astronauts
> reported barely disturbing the surface of the moon when >they landed; yet later,
> they report that the unmanned module seemed to be a tan >colour, and they state
> that they must have covered it in dust when they landed!
Considering the astroanuts had never been on the moon before they didn't know what to expect totally, and their position in the lander module means that they couldn't have seen the surface below them anyway- if they expected a large cloud of dust then the lack of air makes that not possible. "seemed" to be a tan colour is vague, and I doubt even NASA's paint survives exiting atmosphere in one colour ! Its contradictions - supposedly these Astronauts never went to the moon, yet this is picking over details of what they reported on the moon..... with a real conspiracy no inconsistencies would be expected.
>None of the 'evidence' of the alleged moon landing >tallies -
> everything contradicts 'facts' given by NASA themselves, >and even the photos
> themselves are contradictory.
A lot of points are raised by supposedly EX Nasa official, anyone remember Bob Lazar here ? His story also panned out to be complete lies. Tv stations nad ediotrs want a story that sells, and this plugs straight into the mass X files fan base that believes anything written on paper in front of them. Books aren't always fact....
>The amount of radiation shielding required to protect human life
> increases the weight of any spacecraft so much that current rocket technology is
> impractical for such a journey.
The shielding issue is again only being agued primarily by the mysterious "John Maudlin". A quick web search revelas every hoax page has the exact same test of his claims, without variation. The claim that rescue workers at Chernobyl could have used this type of shielding if it worked is absurd - they didnt because no one was prepared for Chernobyl.
The whole problem with this claim of hoax ? None of the sites or books try to disprove it. John Maudlin and this Rene character, they're accepted without question. When did Maudlin work for Nasa, on what ? How old is he, whats his background, is he still at Nasa ? The claims of faked photos are likewise flawed, every site and book loyally gives out the same facts without trying to say "what if" or "but if they were done like this" , its all the same facts repeated. It happened and thats the truth, maybe those who don't believe just can't believe humankind is actually capable of something great ?
The interesting thing is that all of the stages used Hypergolic fuel
> - a mixture which always, *always* leaves a trail of smoke. Yet there is no
> smoke when the ascent stage lifts off.
It may be rather hard to have smoke when there's no air eh?
>In the interview I referred to
> earlier, it was first claimed that they couldn't afford to have any smoke,
> because it would have obscured the landing. Yet the fuel used always creates
> smoke.
This could easily be confusion between the fuels use on earth and in space - no air no smoke.
>Another
> interesting fact is that, as the LM came in to land, >there is a 10-second plus
> panning shot of a previous unmanned vehicle (the name >escapes me at the moment).
> This was supposedly acheived through the small >triangular window of the LM - a
> practically impossible feat.
Not really, the size of the lense used is the real factor in that shot, not the space it was taken from. As an aircraft enthusiast I've poked my camera lense through a fences at various shows - like the one around the B2 bomber at Fairford RIAT in 2000 and produced a wide angle shot with no trace of the fence - photography was actually allowed at this event by the way, the fences were just there to stop people getting too close.
>Related to this is the fact that the astronauts
> reported barely disturbing the surface of the moon when >they landed; yet later,
> they report that the unmanned module seemed to be a tan >colour, and they state
> that they must have covered it in dust when they landed!
Considering the astroanuts had never been on the moon before they didn't know what to expect totally, and their position in the lander module means that they couldn't have seen the surface below them anyway- if they expected a large cloud of dust then the lack of air makes that not possible. "seemed" to be a tan colour is vague, and I doubt even NASA's paint survives exiting atmosphere in one colour ! Its contradictions - supposedly these Astronauts never went to the moon, yet this is picking over details of what they reported on the moon..... with a real conspiracy no inconsistencies would be expected.
>None of the 'evidence' of the alleged moon landing >tallies -
> everything contradicts 'facts' given by NASA themselves, >and even the photos
> themselves are contradictory.
A lot of points are raised by supposedly EX Nasa official, anyone remember Bob Lazar here ? His story also panned out to be complete lies. Tv stations nad ediotrs want a story that sells, and this plugs straight into the mass X files fan base that believes anything written on paper in front of them. Books aren't always fact....
>The amount of radiation shielding required to protect human life
> increases the weight of any spacecraft so much that current rocket technology is
> impractical for such a journey.
The shielding issue is again only being agued primarily by the mysterious "John Maudlin". A quick web search revelas every hoax page has the exact same test of his claims, without variation. The claim that rescue workers at Chernobyl could have used this type of shielding if it worked is absurd - they didnt because no one was prepared for Chernobyl.
The whole problem with this claim of hoax ? None of the sites or books try to disprove it. John Maudlin and this Rene character, they're accepted without question. When did Maudlin work for Nasa, on what ? How old is he, whats his background, is he still at Nasa ? The claims of faked photos are likewise flawed, every site and book loyally gives out the same facts without trying to say "what if" or "but if they were done like this" , its all the same facts repeated. It happened and thats the truth, maybe those who don't believe just can't believe humankind is actually capable of something great ?
Sorry...
When the LM (allegedly) descended onto the moon surface, the booster was cut off at a height of around 8-9 feet.
For the ascent stage, the very top part of the LM lifts off, leaving the base (legs etc.) on the surface. Therefore the blast only hit the part of the LM that remained, not the surface itself.
The interesting thing is that all of the stages used Hypergolic fuel - a mixture which always, *always* leaves a trail of smoke. Yet there is no smoke when the ascent stage lifts off.
In the interview I referred to earlier, it was first claimed that they couldn't afford to have any smoke, because it would have obscured the landing. Yet the fuel used always creates smoke. In the same interview, this is later contradicted.
Another interesting fact is that, as the LM came in to land, there is a 10-second plus panning shot of a previous unmanned vehicle (the name escapes me at the moment). This was supposedly acheived through the small triangular window of the LM - a practically impossible feat.
Related to this is the fact that the astronauts reported barely disturbing the surface of the moon when they landed; yet later, they report that the unmanned module seemed to be a tan colour, and they state that they must have covered it in dust when they landed!
There are also photos which clearly indicate fabrication of the events. One photo is from a low angle looking up, and shows an astronaut on one side, the US flag on the other, and the Earth clearly visible in the background, 'over the shoulder'. Another photo is allegedly of this event taking place; taken from the side, and supposedly at *exactly* the same time via a remote camera. Yet it clearly and irrefutably shows that the camera supposedly taking the first picture is pointing parallel to the 'moon' surface, making the picture utterly impossible.
None of the 'evidence' of the alleged moon landing tallies - everything contradicts 'facts' given by NASA themselves, and even the photos themselves are contradictory.
I was a firm believer in the moon landings when I was younger. I would dearly love for it to be true, because it would be amazing to know that somoeone from our species actually has set foot on the surface of another world. But knowing what I know now... all the dangers involved, the disastrous NASA tests, the radiation issues... I just cannot believe it actually happened. In fact, I am unsure of whether it ever actually will happen.
The amount of radiation shielding required to protect human life increases the weight of any spacecraft so much that current rocket technology is impractical for such a journey. We need both a far superior drive system *and* far better, lighter radiation shielding before we can even contemplate sending a human beyond the upper atmosphere and the Van Allen belts. So, as much as I want to, I cannot believe that a lunar landing happened in the 60's, and I doubt that it will ever happen in my lifetime either.
When the LM (allegedly) descended onto the moon surface, the booster was cut off at a height of around 8-9 feet.
For the ascent stage, the very top part of the LM lifts off, leaving the base (legs etc.) on the surface. Therefore the blast only hit the part of the LM that remained, not the surface itself.
The interesting thing is that all of the stages used Hypergolic fuel - a mixture which always, *always* leaves a trail of smoke. Yet there is no smoke when the ascent stage lifts off.
In the interview I referred to earlier, it was first claimed that they couldn't afford to have any smoke, because it would have obscured the landing. Yet the fuel used always creates smoke. In the same interview, this is later contradicted.
Another interesting fact is that, as the LM came in to land, there is a 10-second plus panning shot of a previous unmanned vehicle (the name escapes me at the moment). This was supposedly acheived through the small triangular window of the LM - a practically impossible feat.
Related to this is the fact that the astronauts reported barely disturbing the surface of the moon when they landed; yet later, they report that the unmanned module seemed to be a tan colour, and they state that they must have covered it in dust when they landed!
There are also photos which clearly indicate fabrication of the events. One photo is from a low angle looking up, and shows an astronaut on one side, the US flag on the other, and the Earth clearly visible in the background, 'over the shoulder'. Another photo is allegedly of this event taking place; taken from the side, and supposedly at *exactly* the same time via a remote camera. Yet it clearly and irrefutably shows that the camera supposedly taking the first picture is pointing parallel to the 'moon' surface, making the picture utterly impossible.
None of the 'evidence' of the alleged moon landing tallies - everything contradicts 'facts' given by NASA themselves, and even the photos themselves are contradictory.
I was a firm believer in the moon landings when I was younger. I would dearly love for it to be true, because it would be amazing to know that somoeone from our species actually has set foot on the surface of another world. But knowing what I know now... all the dangers involved, the disastrous NASA tests, the radiation issues... I just cannot believe it actually happened. In fact, I am unsure of whether it ever actually will happen.
The amount of radiation shielding required to protect human life increases the weight of any spacecraft so much that current rocket technology is impractical for such a journey. We need both a far superior drive system *and* far better, lighter radiation shielding before we can even contemplate sending a human beyond the upper atmosphere and the Van Allen belts. So, as much as I want to, I cannot believe that a lunar landing happened in the 60's, and I doubt that it will ever happen in my lifetime either.
If the booster was cut off, how did it take off again then?
Regarding the last point... apparently the booster was cut off above the moon's surface to avoid disturbing the surface.
Taken from: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
"Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.
How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.
1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?
8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired."
"Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.
How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.
1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?
8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired."
Belldandy wrote:
> Evidence which only started to really come to light
> around the time X files became popular,
Only come to light since, yes - but which has always been there. Things that, at the time, the general public were not probably educated enough to understand. That has changed, and more holes are being found all the time.
> there's little to no proof it was faked
I disagree totally. Scientific fact and actual recorded events indicate that, at the very least, a moon landing at that time was at best improbable, at worst impossible.
> and that sums up the whole daft conspiracy idea.
Like I said earlier, there is far more evidence - not theory - to suggest that it didn't happen, than to back up claims that it did.
> The actual launch - that rocket had to splash down
> somewhere and if it wasn't in space where did it land?
Who says? It would be far easier for it just to keep going.
> The astronauts themselves - none of the three ever said
> a word about this, stay silent all these years ?
If you had been involved in what is potentially the biggest global scam evre, would you rush to admit to it?
>Theres plenty more holes in this theory...
Nowhere near as many as in the moon landing itself.
NASA state that the Lunar Module used Hypergolic fuel, which always produces a smoky exhaust plume (just like the shuttle launches), in *any* atmosphere - yet no smoke is seen when the ascent stage leaves the LM on the moon's surace.
From the book:
"The lander was entirely constructed around the engine housing and fuel tanks. Two astronauts stood in front of the engine housing (located on top of the ascent engine) and were surrounded on all sides - front, back, left and right - by fuel tanks. At the angles between these tanks were the triangular storage bays for the scientific equipment, geological specimen returns, and other necessities. These, together with eight radio systems, life support systems, cameras and other instrumentaion gave the LM of 'Apollo 11' a launch weight of 14.82 tons. This was increased to 16.18 tons on later LM models. The LM was stowed, fully loaded with its hypergolic fuels, on top of the first stage of the Saturn V rocket.
Being uniquely designed to fly in the vacuum of space, the Lunar Module's structure was so delicate (according to many sources) that it could not support its own weight in an Earth environment.
Yet that same LM would have had to endure the maximum thrust of the Saturn V's first and second stage at full acceleration, an imposition of at least 7 G's - that's an equivalent weight of 103.74 tons. If the module could not even support its own weight, then it certainly would have required some very special support or suspension during lift-off from Earth.
Just before he dies, Gus Grissom had noted that NASA's inability to adequately communicate between their spacecraft and ground control - while still on the launch pad - did not bode well for the missions themselves.
When Armstrong was nearly killed during a training exercise on the LM simulator and had to eject before it crashed to the ground, he was unable to hear anything from the control tower through his headphones, due to the excessive noise of the jet engine.
How can it be that the pressurised interior of the LM was virtually silent? The thunderous noise inside this pressurised flying wigwam should have been tremendous, with the rocket engine roaring just under the occupant's feet, yet the sound recordings on all the alleged direct communications with Houston are unhindered by and vibration or significant sound in the background whatsoever. They are miraculously unhindered by any breakup in communications, not many of the "...Say again, Houston?" lines in these carefully written scripts!
Armstrong was standing immediately above a rocket engine producing 10,000lbs of thrust! And we hear nothing? - silent whistles!? And then what abuot the total lack of shake, or stress in his voice? The heat and vibration transmitted to the entire frame of the craft would surely have been and utterly bone-rattling nerve-shattering experience."
And slightly further on...
"Chaikin relates that Armstrong and Aldrin took six hours to put on their suits, while the astronauts of Apollo 15 were supposedly the first astronauts not to have to wear their pressure-suits within the LM. They said that it was a pleasure to wear coveralls while they slept.
QUESTION: If you were really travelling in an untested craft, when the slightest problem might cause your immediate demise, would you be doing it in your shirt sleeves? Would you travel thusly, when apparently, you could maximise your chances of survival by wearing the protective clothing that went with your ticket?"
And then...
"Back on Earth, before launch, each astronaut was suited up by several attendants, working in a spacious arena. Yet we are expected to believe that the astronauts were able to dress and undress themselves in the severely restricted interior of the LM. We are also advised that they slept in their space suits, and some of them allegedly felt the cold whilst the LM stood on the lunar surface. So much for the claimed complete environmental system that these suits afforded the wearer.
QUESTION: How could they possibly become cold in a cabin standing in the sun of the lunar day? In a cabin that supposedly had been thermally insulated, pressurised and specifically designed for their requirements. If anything, they should be too hot, with outside temperatures of around +180 to 200F, and at least one half of the cabin exposed to the full blast of the sun.
Whichever account you read of these astronaut's LM adventures, there is only one certainty - they never, every tally. Not ever."
As I said, the book covers (in detail, but also in layman's terms) aspects and information that the majority of the general public are not even aware of.
In one interview with the authors, George Pinter (previously of Grumman Aerospace, and actively involved at the top level in the development of the cryogenics for the Lunar Module) even contradicts himself over the reasoning behing the lack of smoke from the Hypergolic fuels used.
Regarding your comments about the Soviet Union and the 'liberation' of Germany's rocket scientists - the book covers those, and indicates that on a scientific level, there may have been behind-the-scenes collaboration between the US and USSR nations. In fact, the USSR was - and Russia still is - significantly in advance of the US in terms of rocket technology, with their rockets producing much more thrust and being able to carry much larger payloads.
If you wish to believe in the moon landings, then that is entirely your choice, and I have no problem with that. But before dismissing this as an X-Files generated conspiracy theory, at least have a look at the book.
None of this is based on theory or imagination - everything in the book is based on scientific facts, and contradictory information provided on various occasions by NASA themselves and those who worked on the the projects.
> Evidence which only started to really come to light
> around the time X files became popular,
Only come to light since, yes - but which has always been there. Things that, at the time, the general public were not probably educated enough to understand. That has changed, and more holes are being found all the time.
> there's little to no proof it was faked
I disagree totally. Scientific fact and actual recorded events indicate that, at the very least, a moon landing at that time was at best improbable, at worst impossible.
> and that sums up the whole daft conspiracy idea.
Like I said earlier, there is far more evidence - not theory - to suggest that it didn't happen, than to back up claims that it did.
> The actual launch - that rocket had to splash down
> somewhere and if it wasn't in space where did it land?
Who says? It would be far easier for it just to keep going.
> The astronauts themselves - none of the three ever said
> a word about this, stay silent all these years ?
If you had been involved in what is potentially the biggest global scam evre, would you rush to admit to it?
>Theres plenty more holes in this theory...
Nowhere near as many as in the moon landing itself.
NASA state that the Lunar Module used Hypergolic fuel, which always produces a smoky exhaust plume (just like the shuttle launches), in *any* atmosphere - yet no smoke is seen when the ascent stage leaves the LM on the moon's surace.
From the book:
"The lander was entirely constructed around the engine housing and fuel tanks. Two astronauts stood in front of the engine housing (located on top of the ascent engine) and were surrounded on all sides - front, back, left and right - by fuel tanks. At the angles between these tanks were the triangular storage bays for the scientific equipment, geological specimen returns, and other necessities. These, together with eight radio systems, life support systems, cameras and other instrumentaion gave the LM of 'Apollo 11' a launch weight of 14.82 tons. This was increased to 16.18 tons on later LM models. The LM was stowed, fully loaded with its hypergolic fuels, on top of the first stage of the Saturn V rocket.
Being uniquely designed to fly in the vacuum of space, the Lunar Module's structure was so delicate (according to many sources) that it could not support its own weight in an Earth environment.
Yet that same LM would have had to endure the maximum thrust of the Saturn V's first and second stage at full acceleration, an imposition of at least 7 G's - that's an equivalent weight of 103.74 tons. If the module could not even support its own weight, then it certainly would have required some very special support or suspension during lift-off from Earth.
Just before he dies, Gus Grissom had noted that NASA's inability to adequately communicate between their spacecraft and ground control - while still on the launch pad - did not bode well for the missions themselves.
When Armstrong was nearly killed during a training exercise on the LM simulator and had to eject before it crashed to the ground, he was unable to hear anything from the control tower through his headphones, due to the excessive noise of the jet engine.
How can it be that the pressurised interior of the LM was virtually silent? The thunderous noise inside this pressurised flying wigwam should have been tremendous, with the rocket engine roaring just under the occupant's feet, yet the sound recordings on all the alleged direct communications with Houston are unhindered by and vibration or significant sound in the background whatsoever. They are miraculously unhindered by any breakup in communications, not many of the "...Say again, Houston?" lines in these carefully written scripts!
Armstrong was standing immediately above a rocket engine producing 10,000lbs of thrust! And we hear nothing? - silent whistles!? And then what abuot the total lack of shake, or stress in his voice? The heat and vibration transmitted to the entire frame of the craft would surely have been and utterly bone-rattling nerve-shattering experience."
And slightly further on...
"Chaikin relates that Armstrong and Aldrin took six hours to put on their suits, while the astronauts of Apollo 15 were supposedly the first astronauts not to have to wear their pressure-suits within the LM. They said that it was a pleasure to wear coveralls while they slept.
QUESTION: If you were really travelling in an untested craft, when the slightest problem might cause your immediate demise, would you be doing it in your shirt sleeves? Would you travel thusly, when apparently, you could maximise your chances of survival by wearing the protective clothing that went with your ticket?"
And then...
"Back on Earth, before launch, each astronaut was suited up by several attendants, working in a spacious arena. Yet we are expected to believe that the astronauts were able to dress and undress themselves in the severely restricted interior of the LM. We are also advised that they slept in their space suits, and some of them allegedly felt the cold whilst the LM stood on the lunar surface. So much for the claimed complete environmental system that these suits afforded the wearer.
QUESTION: How could they possibly become cold in a cabin standing in the sun of the lunar day? In a cabin that supposedly had been thermally insulated, pressurised and specifically designed for their requirements. If anything, they should be too hot, with outside temperatures of around +180 to 200F, and at least one half of the cabin exposed to the full blast of the sun.
Whichever account you read of these astronaut's LM adventures, there is only one certainty - they never, every tally. Not ever."
As I said, the book covers (in detail, but also in layman's terms) aspects and information that the majority of the general public are not even aware of.
In one interview with the authors, George Pinter (previously of Grumman Aerospace, and actively involved at the top level in the development of the cryogenics for the Lunar Module) even contradicts himself over the reasoning behing the lack of smoke from the Hypergolic fuels used.
Regarding your comments about the Soviet Union and the 'liberation' of Germany's rocket scientists - the book covers those, and indicates that on a scientific level, there may have been behind-the-scenes collaboration between the US and USSR nations. In fact, the USSR was - and Russia still is - significantly in advance of the US in terms of rocket technology, with their rockets producing much more thrust and being able to carry much larger payloads.
If you wish to believe in the moon landings, then that is entirely your choice, and I have no problem with that. But before dismissing this as an X-Files generated conspiracy theory, at least have a look at the book.
None of this is based on theory or imagination - everything in the book is based on scientific facts, and contradictory information provided on various occasions by NASA themselves and those who worked on the the projects.
Damn. I'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids!
Page: