In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
We did not land on the moon
wallie
Member Posts: 8,595 ✭✭✭
Now NEW Report released with video
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1CpNoI4WGc&feature=related
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1CpNoI4WGc&feature=related
Comments
My conclusion was, some of the moon landings were faked and some were real.
NASA faked them knowing they could pull them off for real at a later date but till they could they fake them to score a cold war victory on the Russians.
Preception is reality, so we won.
That's my take.
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_missions_tracked_by_independent_parties#Apollo_missions_tracked_by_independent_parties
My Russian wife loves giving me crap about this. After 13 years I still don't know if she's serious.
She is just mad that we beat the stuffing out of them in the moon race!
Seriously, if we didnt go, the russians would have told the world we faked it and THEY would have been the winners!!!
I actually like it when people refuse to believe we landed. It underscores what a monumental achievement it was, what Americans were capable of. Sadly, we are not capable of it now. But remember, only 24 people have ever left low earth orbit. ALL of them Americans. Only 12 people have ever walked on the moon, ALL of them Americans. I often wonder, if the Russians would have beat us, would these same people believe that THEY went? I think so, it is just that people like bashing America. BTW, the Chinese are going there, should land by 2025. Will people believe them? I bet do one will doubt it.
Carry on.
Been saying that for years.......[V]
+1
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Way back when I was in school, they told us that in the Bible back in Moses times, the people were building this pyramid to the heavens
And God got angry and changed every one's language [:)]
Maybe just maybe this has a bering on this moon landing
Let me ~(.)-(.)~ if I get this right
Way back when I was in school, they told us that in the Bible back in Moses times, the people were building this pyramid to the heavens
And God got angry and changed every one's language [:)]
Maybe just maybe this has a bering on this moon landing
well, in this case, the "building" was a lie instead.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
[/quote]
I think thats the gay terrorists granfadda there on the lower right.
Because the government is just that much more inept......[V]
Bingo! We have the winner!
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
Many, many Categories for the Pulitzer prize
And even a Special Awards and Citations Category
But there was a gap between the years 1964 and 1973
The greatest event in the history of mankind and u would think Neil Armstrong would of gotten that award for "First man to walk on the moon in 1969"
But they did not have a category for " If u can't Make it Fake it"
http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat
My Russian wife loves giving me crap about this.
After 13 years I still don't know if she's serious.
Russia didn't have first man walk in space either.
They faked it.
You can see in the picture he was actually underwater!
Bubbles in space?
Russia has no ICBMs the cold war was a hoax.
The Russian Revolution was financed by Wall Street.
I've investigated this in that I've taken some time to look into it.
I looked at the pro and the con arguments. Both have good points.
My conclusion was, some of the moon landings were faked and some were real.
NASA faked them knowing they could pull them off for real at a
later date but till they could they fake them to score a cold war
victory on the Russians.
Preception is reality, so we won.
That's my take.
It is scientifically impossible to go to the moon.
They cannot pass the space radiation or the radiation belts.
They've never sent even a monkey or dog thru it that lived.
They've never been and never will go to the moon.
It's 225,000 miles aay which is beyond any fuel capacity
unless they devise a nuclear powered ship.
The temps on the moon are +250F in the sun and -250F in the dark.
This was a 2001 report on Fox Network that covers the basics.
and features a few former NASA employees.
www.archive.org/details/DidWeLandOnTheMoon
It's approx. 239,000 miles to the moon.
And.....here's some info. on the day / night temps.
What is the temperature on the moon?
The Moon has no atmosphere, so there is no "air temperature". The surface temperature varies greatly depending on whether it is in sunlight or not.
The average daytime temperature on the Moon is around 107?C (225?F), but can be as high as 123?C (253?F).
When an area rotates out of the sun, the "nighttime" temperature falls to an average of -153?C (-243?F).
The temperatures near the poles (which get the least solar heating) can fall as low as -233?C (-387?F). This is only 40?C above absolute zero.
However, there are craters (Hermite, Peary and Bosch craters), that never receive any sunlight and their temperatures can be below -249 ?C (-416?F, 26 Kelvin) [See related link for more information]
9+7449961
Were those temperatures taken orally or rectaly ?[;)][:D]
Just sayin'....
quote:Originally posted by militaria1918
I've investigated this in that I've taken some time to look into it.
I looked at the pro and the con arguments. Both have good points.
My conclusion was, some of the moon landings were faked and some were real.
NASA faked them knowing they could pull them off for real at a
later date but till they could they fake them to score a cold war
victory on the Russians.
Preception is reality, so we won.
That's my take.
It is scientifically impossible to go to the moon.
They cannot pass the space radiation or the radiation belts.
They've never sent even a monkey or dog thru it that lived.
They've never been and never will go to the moon.
It's 225,000 miles aay which is beyond any fuel capacity
unless they devise a nuclear powered ship.
The temps on the moon are +250F in the sun and -250F in the dark.
This was a 2001 report on Fox Network that covers the basics.
and features a few former NASA employees.
www.archive.org/details/DidWeLandOnTheMoon
Items in blue, above:
1. Shuttle astronauts/Intn'l Space Station astronauts have gotten sick? Yes?
2. Agreed, if you do a constant burn. But why stay on the accelerator pedal going downhill? The astronauts did about a two-minute burn to escape earth orbit, then shut the engines down and went ballistic
3. From the get-go, I was under the impression that the target landing areas were at the 'terminators'*. All of them. Best, Joe
*Line between sunlight and darkness-moderate temperatures
I posted this in another country "Hitler is alive"
Seen at age 45 and 92 where he lived and died in Madagascar
Because of the similarity of the pictures there were people that believed it
The engineers , techs, and everyone else associated with the early
space program should be lauded beyond any other human achievement PERIOD.
Just because the * in the present administration can't get
their collective heads out of their butts dosen't mean that the space program was a sham.
Remember The Big Dumb O cancelled the constellation program that included the Ares booster (successfully tested)
replacement for the
shuttle. Shows you how much regard he has for the country's proudest moment in recent history.
STAN KEMP
"1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam."
> Stars are not very bright, they would only be visible during the lunar night, and the day-night cycle of the moon is a month long.
It is not our atmosphere that prevents us from seeing the stars, obviously we can see the stars through out atmosphere at night.
"2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?"
> The atmosphere was not pure-oxygen after the command module fire on the launch pad of apollo 1.
Also, the use of high percentages of oxygen is because the inside was going to be very low pressure.
If your atmosphere is 100% oxygen, but only 1/5th the density of earths atmosphere at sea level, the oxygen concentration is not any higher.
"3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?"
> BS, harrier jump jets have an engine generating 20,000+ pounds of thrust, no crater forms. The boot print is because only the dust directly underneath the rocket would have been blown away. With no atmosphere and convection, even on perfectly flat terrain with not lumps to block the high velocity gas, you wouldnt need to go very far from where the rocket was pointing to find no "wind" from the rocket exhaust at the surface.
"4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)"
> Funny how it acts as if the skeptics are the ones that don't believe in a hoax, rather than do believe the moon landing happened... they also misspell "Skeptic".... but anyway.
You can't burn things without oxygen, it is no secret that liquid fuel rockets use liquid oxygen. There is no vacuum or lack of oxygen at the rocket nozzle when its operating.
A butane lighter would not work though...
"5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place."
> BS, starts with a false premise (Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand), conclusions it draws are thus false.
"6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions."
> OMG, the video quality got better, it must be a hoax, camera phones must be a hoax too, because digital cameras couldn't "macigally" get better from 1975.
Additionally, there is a public explanation for the quality that these guys ignore. The format of the signal was not the same as used in broadcast TV, those first images shown were shown by filming the screen NASA was looking at. Subsequently, they broadcast the source data.
Much like bootlegged movies, DVDrips are much better quality than "cam jobs" where someone snuck a camcorder into the movie theater.
"7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?"
> The question again starts with a false premise, false conclusion
"8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon)."
> Uneven terrain explains this, these people just can't comprehend perspective.
Funny how they discount earthshine as a source of light, but wonder why they can't see the starlight (heres a hint, the earth is bigger than the moon, and can reflect more light, particularly when there are a lot of clouds, and the moon is much brighter than the stars here on earth),
"9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?"
> False assumption or loaded/biased question. I don't accept it was a "stage prop" and I don't accept that it had the letter "C" on it. To me, it looks more like there was a hair/fiber on the photo when it was developed (especially common in older movie films, where you have errant lines all over the place from crud on the film/in the projector)
"10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?"
> Why are they even talking about Gemini?
"11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up."
> BS. The earth doesn't overheat from the "relentless bombardment of the suns rays", and Earth has a molten radioactive core and a much smaller surface to volume ratio.... The earth has no way to lose heat that the command module doesn't, and that is blackbody radiation.
Also, why are they discussing a movie?
"12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?"
> They tested the LM by descending most of the way down, and then ascending again. They did do simulations, not full scale with the LEM, how do you simulate a landing in 1/6th G with the actual craft, without actually going to the moon?
All the rocket control systems had been tested. The astronauts had trained on the same control system, they knew the moons surface was hard enough to land on.
Its really not that hard, if you can ascend and descent controllably (tested), then just do so until the legs touch a hard system...
"13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches."
> The suits restricted movement, and its not like they were there for a high jump competition. Jumping as high as you could on the moon would have you land with more force than jumping as high as you can on earth (due to lack of air resistence), which is enough to hurt yourself... and they need to worry about puncturing their suit if they fall down on landing.
"14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth."
> Why should they, unless you are running, one foot is always on the ground, and your maximum stride length is fixed. Its also what the astronauts would be most comfortable with.
Again, the suits were bulky, and they don't want to fall down, longer times off the ground allow for more time for them to rotate (can't stop rotation once your feet aren't touching).
There is no reason their stride length should be longer
"15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars."
> BS, it all depends on what speed they are travelling. BTW, they conveniently don't mention that the dust kicked up moves in ballistic/parabolic trajectories, with no evidence of turbulent flow or convection: that thing was driving in a vacuum, and to fake that requires an awfully big vacuum sealed set.
"16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?"
> Earth leaves a "wake" in the solar wind as it passes by, I'm not sure, but you could probably plan the mission for when the moon is "behind" earth and safer.
Also, a 1959 calculation before spacecraft had actually measured the radiation is not relevant. The trip wasn't that long either.
"Immense" is also relative. Maybe a few months would kill you (meanwhile you can spend decades on earth without worry), but they were only in it a few days.
"17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order."
> This is a red herring, the presence of a zipper does not preclude some other form of seal outside or inside of that zipper.
The zipper could be load bearing while a flap over or under it seals it - think of a coat where you zipper up, and then button a flap over the zipper, except instead of buttons, you have a rubber pressure seal - I'm just speculating here, I don't know how they sealed it, but the use of a zipper does not mean the suit was fake.
"18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized."
> This argument is without merit, it takes two non comparable things and tries to compare them
"19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM."
> He can "find" whatever he wants, the simple answer is they left through a hole, and it was a tight fit.
"20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did."
> BS, starts with a false assertion, the conclusion is thus flawed.
"21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering."
> That was not flutter, false assertion. That was swinging, and what you would expect with no air to dampen the oscillations. On Earth, a flag which has a lot of sufrace area and little weight will not swing back and forth if you hold the bottom out horizontally, and release (in no wind), it basically falls and just hangs there. On the moon it would keep swinging back and forth for some time. That video does not show a flag "flutter" like any flag I've ever seen in an atmosphere.
"22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race."
> Why do you need a signal transmission to have a camera pan? The LEM departs from the command module (which was manned by the 3rd crewman who didn't go on the LEM), which is in orbit around the moon. Its a 2+ second delay from earth, but not to where the camera was.
What does Gus Grissom have to do with this? He died on Apollo 1, they didn't land on the moon until Apollo 11. There was surely alot they still had to work out when Gus made that comment.
"23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?"
> Why is this relevant? If he resigned because it was a hoax and he had a bad conscience, wouldn't he have said something by now?
Maybe it was because before Apollo 1, 3 astronauts died in a fire on the launch pad?
"24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear."
> It wouldn't be able to fake the transmissions from when they were halfway to the moon. And the question is again loaded with unproven assertions, not facts to be explained
"25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!"
> BS, question again loaded with false assertions.
"26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!"
> It was Apollo 1, they landed on the moon in Apollo 11, obviously, there was a lot of work to be done between Apollo 1 and 11.
"27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health.""
> Again, its all relative, it may be dangerous to spend a lot of time there, a space station would not be viable, but they were in and out rather fast, maybe it would increase cancer risk as much as smoking a pack a day... who knows. The report is vague, and you can't used vague findings to disprove something
"28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator."
> Its no secret that the computers sucked, but the calculations required on board the craft were not that complicated. They were also very good at writing code back then to minimize usage. Now programmers pay little attention to computational efficiency of their programs.
I suppose they could also dump memory and upload new data for each phase of the mission.
"29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?"
> False assertion, the stuff that was left can be seen.
"30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth."
> False assertion, all the technology is there, a specific design and the hardware are not there, because there is no point. They can get a lander to Titan, which is a much more interesting place than the moon.
"31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, showing the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!". and appears above in the 'Why Did Apollo 11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?' section."
> I suspect this is a false assertion/ misportrayal.
"32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?"
> I dunno, schiesse happens?
"33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide? The Apollo mission was meticulously planned, yet there were still flaws in the plan which the public is being made aware of as time goes on. Unlike a simple game of bingo where nothing is planned and no strategy is involved the Apollo mission was thought out and at the time there seemed to be an answer to every question that arose. As times change and more research is being done on the mission the tables are beginning to turn and the public is starting to see the truth."
> Unproven assertion of airbrushing, this question is nothing but false assertions rather than questions of how facts can be explained.
OOOOOOO!!! NASA gave out medals
BIG WOOPIIIIDOOOOOO for the greatest feat of mankind
But wait THE PULITZER PRIZE there was some one
After all Hank Williams got one
Neil Armstrong>>>>NO
Buzz Aldrin>>>>>>NO
WELL who the hell got one
Kevin Carter got one
Was he there????
NO
He was a photo journalist (and a good one)
Something don't smell right in here
Didn't go to the moon. Good Lord
quote:Originally posted by Amish
It is scientifically impossible to go to the moon.
Not sure what school you went to, but it absolutely
is 'scientifically' possible to go to the moon.
They cannot pass the space radiation or the radiation belts.
Presumably you're referring to the Van Allen Belt, and yes they
could. It was a risk, they knew it, but they took it and
prevailed.Solar flares were actually a bigger risk than the Van
Allen belt.
They've never sent even a monkey or dog thru it that lived.
This is essentially a correct statement (as much as I hate to
admit it). Do you know why? Because the only creature other than a
human that went through it was a pair of tortoises. And they lived
too. So no, no monkeys or dogs ever made it through alive, because
none were ever sent.
They've never been and never will go to the moon.
They've been not only to the moon, but every single other
planet in our solar system...including some we didn't even know
existed.
It's 225,000 miles aay which is beyond any fuel capacity
unless they devise a nuclear powered ship.
You don't need any fuel to continue moving once in
space. Once you escape the drag of atmosphere and the pull of
gravity, you basically coast to the moon...which is exactly what
they did.
The temps on the moon are +250F in the sun and -250F in the dark.
So? They had heating and cooling equipment long before the
moon shots.
This was a 2001 report on Fox Network that covers the basics.
and features a few former NASA employees.
www.archive.org/details/DidWeLandOnTheMoon
Do you believe everything you see on TV? Sometimes a little
research is in order so you don't look foolish.
You'll have to prove they went.
Until such time they never went and it remains impossible.
Denial won't prove anything.
They've never sent any creature into space that lived.
Nobody has been to the moon. There is no slingshot thru a hole in
the radiation belt.(25,000 mi thick) Such claims are unproven unscientific rubbish.
I've been in the 1960s space capsule at a museum
and it's no thicker metal than any other military aircraft.
I'm not buying it.
The ship would not make it to the moon without fuel.
It would not leave the moon either.
Often overlooked in the "moon" flag picture is the "earth".
Two other small earth pics from NASA url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Earth_over_Apollo_11_Lunar_Module.jpg"]1[/urlurl="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Apollo_11_lunar_module.jpg/621px-Apollo_11_lunar_module.jpg"]2[/url
Here's the problem, as Bart Sibrel correctly pointed out;
Earth is 4X larger than the moon.
Viewing the earth from the moon (if man could stand on the moon
which they cannot) would always look 4X larger
than the moon when directly overhead here on earth.
The moon is always relative to a large earth,
unlike the moon which which goes around earth thus
appearing smaller at certain times of the month.
Recent Japanese picture of earth from moon..
There is a masonic-illuminati ruling Washington, NASA,
Russia, China, Japan and beyond. They pulled the hoax
for the Cold War hoax ICBM threat.
.
..
...
quote:Originally posted by Flying Clay Disk
quote:Originally posted by Amish
It is scientifically impossible to go to the moon.
Not sure what school you went to, but it absolutely
is 'scientifically' possible to go to the moon.
They cannot pass the space radiation or the radiation belts.
Presumably you're referring to the Van Allen Belt, and yes they
could. It was a risk, they knew it, but they took it and
prevailed.Solar flares were actually a bigger risk than the Van
Allen belt.
They've never sent even a monkey or dog thru it that lived.
This is essentially a correct statement (as much as I hate to
admit it). Do you know why? Because the only creature other than a
human that went through it was a pair of tortoises. And they lived
too. So no, no monkeys or dogs ever made it through alive, because
none were ever sent.
They've never been and never will go to the moon.
They've been not only to the moon, but every single other
planet in our solar system...including some we didn't even know
existed.
It's 225,000 miles aay which is beyond any fuel capacity
unless they devise a nuclear powered ship.
You don't need any fuel to continue moving once in
space. Once you escape the drag of atmosphere and the pull of
gravity, you basically coast to the moon...which is exactly what
they did.
The temps on the moon are +250F in the sun and -250F in the dark.
So? They had heating and cooling equipment long before the
moon shots.
This was a 2001 report on Fox Network that covers the basics.
and features a few former NASA employees.
www.archive.org/details/DidWeLandOnTheMoon
Do you believe everything you see on TV? Sometimes a little
research is in order so you don't look foolish.
You'll have to prove they went.
Until such time they never went and it remains impossible.
Denial won't prove anything.
They've never sent any creature into space that lived.
Nobody has been to the moon. There is no slingshot thru a hole in
the radiation belt.(25,000 mi thick) Such claims are unproven unscientific rubbish.
I've been in the 1960s space capsule at a museum
and it's no thicker metal than any other military aircraft.
I'm not buying it.
The ship would not make it to the moon without fuel.
It would not leave the moon either.
Often overlooked in the "moon" flag picture is the "earth".
Two other small earth pics from NASA url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Earth_over_Apollo_11_Lunar_Module.jpg"]1[/urlurl="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Apollo_11_lunar_module.jpg/621px-Apollo_11_lunar_module.jpg"]2[/url
Here's the problem, as Bart Sibrel correctly pointed out;
Earth is 4X larger than the moon.
Viewing the earth from the moon (if man could stand on the moon
which they cannot) would always look 4X larger
than the moon when directly overhead here on earth.
The moon is always relative to a large earth,
unlike the moon which which goes around earth thus
appearing smaller at certain times of the month.
Recent Japanese picture of earth from moon..
There is a masonic-illuminati ruling Washington, NASA,
Russia, China, Japan and beyond. They pulled the hoax
for the Cold War hoax ICBM threat.
.
..
...
Can I buy some pot from you?