Moon Landings Faked? (and all other space mission fakery)

[Mee_n_Mac]

Holey Moley, is this thread still going on? :shock:

This one is nothing compared to the recent one over at Above Top Secret. Starting around page 165 (!!!!) there's a very good discussion with all sorts of info re: flares and particle (non)events, Van Allen belts and all manner of hoax nonsense. Very informative ! It's passed page 200 ATM.

WRT passing through the VABs here's a couple of good graphical representations (from the ATS thread) ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4gSRy1tHls[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4[/youtube]

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Is this the real reason why the "current" administration cancelled the future moon landings proposed
by the Bush administration....or was that all a "Bush wanted it to happen...so we should cancell it!!!).

With an executive order....of course.

And with a Forrest Gump accent...."And thats all I got to say about the Moon landings!"

And ByeBye....and BA BA Booey to ya all!!!

You're joking right? If the moon landings were actually faked they wouldn't have even bothered planning a return trip just to cancel it. What sense would that make?

 

[Smersh]

In 15 billion years, as earth careens throgh a starless void, it will still be going on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on....

Well, 3 billion years maybe. In 15 billion years or less, won't the Earth have been swallowed up by the red giant sun by then? Of course, it's still quite possible I guess that by that time the human race will have occupied other planets in other star systems and Apollo hoax believers will still be posting their nonsense on message boards ...

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

In 15 billion years, as earth careens throgh a starless void, it will still be going on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on....

Well, 3 billion years maybe. In 15 billion years or less, won't the Earth have been swallowed up by the red giant sun by then? Of course, it's still quite possible I guess that by that time the human race will have occupied other planets in other star systems and Apollo hoax believers will still be posting their nonsense on message boards ...

Should people have colonized other planets in the distant future the origin of the species on some mythical planet called Earth will be debated ! :?

 

[frodo1008]

Mee-n-Mac. perhaps by those end times some billions of years in the future, there will be "Earth Hoax" types that will offer scads of proof on the You tube of that time that the Earth never existed, and was really a giant set by the NASA of that time (National Galactic Administration?) NGA into fooling the people that it did ever exist at all!! :twisted: :twisted:

 

[warpfactor999]

Is this the real reason why the "current" administration cancelled the future moon landings proposed
by the Bush administration....or was that all a "Bush wanted it to happen...so we should cancell it!!!).

With an executive order....of course.

And with a Forrest Gump accent...."And thats all I got to say about the Moon landings!"

And ByeBye....and BA BA Booey to ya all!!!

You're joking right? If the moon landings were actually faked they wouldn't have even bothered planning a return trip just to cancel it. What sense would that make?

Actually Yuri...what I was implying.... was a joke that Nobama cancelled the moon program that Bush instated to cover up the "FAKE" moonlandings....To be real...the moon landings were real....what I do not understand is why Nobama wont let us go back to the moon and establish a base to get ready for Mars.....I believe Nobama was coerced into stopping everything Bush wanted and or his regime...."Lets go to a asteroid!".....Obama says...give me a break!!!!!! I hate that as_h_le!!!!!

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Constellation had good goals that I agree with. You'll find that many on this board are pretty anti-constellation though. A moon base with a crew rotated every 6 months was a great idea and is one that I still support. I would rather see that than an asteroid mission, or at least a mission to Phobos or something. But the powers that be have decided that we are apparentally not ready yet and instead should now focus on assisting the commercial space industry and preparing a deep space mission to an asteroid which will probably be using the Orion craft, or two Orions docked together.

I don't know if the cancellation was a good thing or a bad thing. But LEO should be our first priority, and with the retirement of the space shuttle we need to make sure that we can find a new way to have regular access to LEO. That's what COTS is designed for. When the next administration comes in Obama's asteroid mission may be cancelled in favor of a moon base or Phobos mission. In the coming decades I think we will see more deep space missions to the moon, Mars and its moons, NEOs, perhaps a manned Venus flyby, and one day we will venture out beyond the asteroid belt into the outer solar system.

It's all a process though. Each step builds upon the next. Unfortunately when Nixon cancelled Apollo and its application program we kinda took a step back to do only LEO with the space shuttle. I believe we should have had the space shuttle and continued Apollo's application program. The nation's budget isn't infinite though, but what is sad is the hundreds of billions spent every year on that black hole of a "defense" budget. And before you blame Obama for having no vision and destroying Bush's work, don't forget that Bush wrecked the surplus and the economy with the wars. If not for those then we would have the pockets to be more ambitious in space.

 

[frodo1008]

Excellent points Yuri. Some time ago someone ran a poll here on this exact thing. And going back to the moon won hands down!!

In fact, going back to the moon makes far more sense for an immediate deep space goal than anything else we could do!

The moon is far closer and easier to get to (if it was not, then how the heck did we get there some 40 years ago?). It has many of the resources that could be used for a true space faring civilization, evidently now even including water!

And even those that have been there are well aware that we have not even begun to actually explore this nearest body to the Earth!

If you could state that exploring the San Fernando Valley where I live would suffice to say that you thoroughly explored the continents of Africa and Australia together (the combined areas of which just about are the same as the area of the moon), then you could say that we have actually explored the moon. So those that say that we have been there and done that, are at best uninformed, and at worst just plain silly!

And unfortunately that seems to include our current president as well!

If we supposedly can not afford to get back to the moon, just what makes anybody even think that we can afford ANY kind of deep space human exploration?

And yes, most of us also agree that developing a true Cheap Access To Space (CATS) policy should also be pursued at the same time at least. But if the pure private industry types such as spacex can actually live up to their own hype, then this should actually be relatively easy and inexpensive for NASA to afford to do!

No, the problem in general for many of us here was not the actual goal of Constellation, it was the details of the methodology for achievement that goal that was the problem. Many of we space cadets here thought that the rocket designs for getting back to the moon were both flawed safety wise, and were certainly far too expensive to achieve, and it has been shown that we were correct in this thinking!

And unfortunately, that may still be the case, only now that is compounded by the desire to eventually go out far beyond the moon itself!

Whatever happened to the NASA and its contractor partnerships of the 1960's that we all remember, worked for, and loved so well??

I wish I knew!! :x :x

 

[frodo1008]

Just for your general information. Just went to the Moon, Mars, or Asteroids: Which is the best goal?

thread, and here are the current results of same:


Lunar base. It's the next logical step.
70
65%

Asteroid mission. Deep space experience.
18
17%

Mars mission. We need to move on.
19
18%

As I said, the moon as a goal wins, hands down!!

 

[adrenalynn]

Before getting too excited about how "people" voted -

The people that vote in the polls here are pretty... "interesting". I'm fairly convinced that these are the same people that voted for the extinction of our species by voting Darwin out of existence - and their idea of "science" is not aggravating the elf that turns the fridge light on and off. You know - the elf that's married to the scary pixie with the blowtorch that lives in the microwave oven?

 

[uberhund]

the elf that's married to the scary pixie with the blowtorch that lives in the microwave oven?

Wait. Wait. I'm trying to get my head around this. I need a moment. You mean to say... that the pixie... is married to refrigerator elf? She never said a word about that to me, that !@tc#$! No wonder my refrigerator light doesn't work anymore.

 

[frodo1008]

The humor was indeed funny, but also not relevant to the thread. As the people that vote on these pols on this site are the people that post here (and I believe they can only vote once each), then the pol is indeed valid.

Whether or not it is exiting or not, I am not sure. :?

 

[MeteorWayne]

There's several fallacies in there. Anyone can vote, even unregistered users. Since many polls wind up on the SDC front page, the same "rocket scientists" that post article comments can vote as well. Have you ever read them? :roll: :roll: And I'm not sure that you can only vote once, or even need to be alive. I hear there's a large block of voters from Chicago

 

[adrenalynn]

exactly - and therefore - completely relevant to the thread.

I didn't find anything humorous about it. Frighting... but far from funny.

 

[frodo1008]

I went back over the posts with the pol and the results were just about the same as the pol results themselves. With the moon being far and away the greatest choice. The only real difference was that there should have been another choice for spending far more money and efforts on CATS, and this I also have no problems with.

In fact, I have absolutely no problem with the government in concert with private industry doing ALL three alternatives at the same time! If this would mean raising NASA's budget by even twice what it is now, then why not? That would mean increasing NASA's share of the federal budget from the 0.3% it is now to 0.6%, not even raising it to even half of the average 2.0 % (or 1.0%) that we had back in the Apollo era!

You would think that the government would be desperately looking for some way to not only increase employment, but at the same time make that employment at least middle class employment with good benefits, just what aerospace has always paid!

And all this could be done for less than an increase of 0.5% of the federal budget instead of the $trillions of dollars for either a bank bailout, or wars that can not be won by guns alone!

Some 400,000 people were employed directly by NASA and its contractors on Apollo alone, and this resulted in at least another 2 million indirectly employed as well!

And for less than an additional $20 billion or so it could be done again!

As I said (and the more I think about it the more true it becomes) if we can not afford to even send human beings back to the moon for both further exploration and even exploitation of its resources, then we will NEVER be able to afford to do these other goals even further out!

Thus eventually dooming humanity to the fate of the dinosaurs. If you want something to be scared about, how about that??

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

You would think that the government would be desperately looking for some way to not only increase employment, but at the same time make that employment at least middle class employment with good benefits, just what aerospace has always paid!

People, people, people ! You're in danger of draining all the WooWoo-ness out of this thread ! Please stop it now, I beg of you ....

 

[brandbll]

I think most hoaxsters have fallen under a spell of witchcraft. You see, witches would rather have you believe that the only way to get to the moon is through magic, not science. This way you put more faith in the witches and soon you are completely under their(witches) control, enslavement if you will. Anyways, most smart people know that science has proven that you cannot get to the Moon on magic alone, you need some science mixed in there somewhere.

 

[frodo1008]

Mee-n-Mac, sorry, I had forgotten that this thread is in the forum "The Unexplained" and therefore requires a great deal of additional Woo Woo - ness to be legitimate! :twisted: :twisted:

 

[adrenalynn]

>> This way you put more faith in the witches and soon you are completely under their(witches) control, enslavement if you will.

Errr - if they have genuine magic, why would they need your sign-off to enslave you?

Heck, even my magic-wand (aka a 9-Iron) doesn't require any faith to get the job done.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

You know, of all the blabber-babble I've read in this endless, silly thread from these alleged "hoaxers" (I think most of them are bored trolls), I've never once seen anything approaching a worthy rebuttal as to why we would fake it six times.

 

[brandbll]

>> This way you put more faith in the witches and soon you are completely under their(witches) control, enslavement if you will.

Errr - if they have genuine magic, why would they need your sign-off to enslave you?

Heck, even my magic-wand (aka a 9-Iron) doesn't require any faith to get the job done.

Good point, i didn't think about that.

 

[SJQ]

You know, of all the blabber-babble I've read in this endless, silly thread from these alleged "hoaxers" (I think most of them are bored trolls), I've never once seen anything approaching a worthy rebuttal as to why we would fake it six times.

Fake it six times? Big deal. My girlfriend did that in one night..... :roll:


How the Moderators can continue to process the endless drivel in these threads without going totally off the deep end is more than a little impressive. Someone proposed a tin-foil hat award for the best woo-woo in another thread. May I suggest a tin-foil jock award for the moderators (a tin-foil chastity belt for the ladies?) who drool the least at the end of the year?

And yeah, I remember watching all of the landings on TV - hell, in those days, Time Magazine was actually worth reading, if only for the Science section. What we could have done in 40+ years.....

SJQ

 

[ZenGalacticore]

You know, of all the blabber-babble I've read in this endless, silly thread from these alleged "hoaxers" (I think most of them are bored trolls), I've never once seen anything approaching a worthy rebuttal as to why we would fake it six times.

Fake it six times? Big deal. My girlfriend did that in one night..... :roll:

Hey buddy! Don't quote me unless you're quoting me to talk or debate with me, or quoting me in some kind of context. Okay? 'Cause I'm sorry you can't satisfy your little gal, and that she has to lie to you with her body. But your lack of sexual performance, sensitivity, and communication to the fairer sex has nothing whatsoever to do with faking six Moon-Landings.

(Women have been faking orgasms for probably at least 20,000 years--only they know how long-- and since how long had we been seriously trying to get to the Moon?) So don't quote me with a cliche analogy.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Less coffee, more of these methinks.

 

[SJQ]

Thank you, Mee_n_mac. I considered posting a similar reply, but I felt it would only aggravate ZenGalacticore further - better that the message came from a third party.

So, I saw ZenGalacticore's response and held off replying. I'm not interested in a dispute, and on re-reading my post, I don't think I either a) disagreed with his point, or b) engaged in an ad hominem attack on him. To deal with b) first, the moderators - properly - step in promptly when an ad hominem occurs, and I haven't seen any action on their part. Ultimately, the moderators get the final say. Their forum, their rules.

To deal with ZenGalacticore's point about the absence of rebuttal - and to be explicitly clear, I do NOT believe that the moon landings were faked ANY number of times; they happened - he is right: the conspiracy types haven't addressed the number of landings supposedly faked.

My point was simply that it would not matter to the conspiracy types whether there were six, six hundred, or six gajillion moon landings. That I dismissed the number six in (I thought) a humorous fashion reflects my opinion of the woo-woos, but I did not suggest that ZenGalacticore was a woo-woo. Perhaps lacking in (my) sense of humour, but still firmly attached to Planet Earth. I think....

Note that you could physically paint (it's a really special paint) the moon's entire surface with the Coke/Pepsi/GMC/Ford/<whatever> logo, and the landing conspiracy types would insist that the image was projected from the Earth: it could not have been done in situ because there weren't any moon landings. Nevermind that the necessary power (petawatts, at a guess - I should do a ROM calculation, if only to see if sufficient power might actually be available) for such a projection would introduce significant atmospheric effects and blind every recon satellite in orbit. And it would be hard to hide the (at least) three sets of infra-structure needed to maintain the projection over the full 24 hours of Earth's rotation. Basic engineering requirements make the conspiracy crowd's various hypotheses (a polite term for their noises) unsupportable.

As an after-thought, if ZenGalacticore felt I was indulging in an ad hominem with my comment on the moderators' tolerance of the woo-woos, then I would point out that the comment was made in a separate paragraph, and there was no reference in that paragraph to ZenGalacticore. If ZenGlacticore is arguing an accusation through "guilt by association", then he is reading more into my post than I ever intended, and I can't help him there.

At this point, I consider the matter closed.

SJQ