Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
547 replies to this topic

#226    Pseudomorph

Pseudomorph

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 114 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2005
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 July 2005 - 12:25 PM

thumbup.gif


#227    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,139 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 30 July 2005 - 01:27 PM

The lunar module was tested successfully in orbit around Earth and the Moon on previous missions.  The landing trainer that crashed had many, many successful flights.  There were over a hundred successful flights with it.  
http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html
A good quote from that page
QUOTE
It is important to understand that these vehicles were not built as prototypes for the lunar module. A prototype is built to test the technology that will go into the final version, whether everything fits together, and to determine how it can be built on an assembly line. The LLTVs and LLRVs were built to reproduce for the pilot, as best as could be determined in advance, the "feel" of flying the lunar module using whatever ad hoc technology had to be included to do that in an earth environment.


Comparing the shuttle to the moon landing is a red herring.  They are used for completely different purposes and the Shuttle is not 25 years old.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#228    The Russian Hare

The Russian Hare

    Silent assassin

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,110 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hare's Lair

  • Boat Tailed & Hollow Pointed

Posted 30 July 2005 - 01:45 PM

QUOTE
If we were advanced enough to land men on the moon six times over 30 years ago, we would not be still trying to make the Shuttle just orbit Earth without blowing up.


That is a glaring false analogy. These two spacecraft have very different missions.

"Do you not know that I live by war, and that peace would be my undoing?" - Sir John Hawkwood

#229    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 30 July 2005 - 04:13 PM

QUOTE(Redneck @ Jul 30 2005, 06:45 AM)
QUOTE
If we were advanced enough to land men on the moon six times over 30 years ago, we would not be still trying to make the Shuttle just orbit Earth without blowing up.


That is a glaring false analogy. These two spacecraft have very different missions.

View Post


And which do you suppose is the more difficult mission?


#230    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 30 July 2005 - 04:26 PM

QUOTE(frenat @ Jul 30 2005, 06:27 AM)
The lunar module was tested successfully in orbit around Earth and the Moon on previous missions.  The landing trainer that crashed had many, many successful flights.  There were over a hundred successful flights with it. 
http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html
A good quote from that page
QUOTE
It is important to understand that these vehicles were not built as prototypes for the lunar module. A prototype is built to test the technology that will go into the final version, whether everything fits together, and to determine how it can be built on an assembly line. The LLTVs and LLRVs were built to reproduce for the pilot, as best as could be determined in advance, the "feel" of flying the lunar module using whatever ad hoc technology had to be included to do that in an earth environment.


Comparing the shuttle to the moon landing is a red herring.  They are used for completely different purposes and the Shuttle is not 25 years old.

View Post


Please provide a link showing evidence of the lem successfully being tested - I haven't heard of it. Of course, they destroyed the blueprints (Why?) And the rover blueprints (Why?) so it's hard to verify much of the claims.
It's not a red herring - it goes to technological capabilities between then and now. And it's not an advancement to orbit the earth after landing men on the moon six times (supposedly). Hell, they were saying Gemini did the orbiting of earth missions, then the progression was logically to the moon. The Space Shuttle is as advanced as we have ever truly been for manned spaceflight. Please tell me what over 100 Shuttle missions have done for us? And why they are even more of a problem than 10 years ago? It's all a grand fiction that man has landed on the moon.

The advances in all technologies are so far ahead of 35 years ago in every way imaginable. The control panel on the lunar modules look like they're from a Buck Rogers film from the 1930's for God's sake. The computers were less powerful than a 5 dollar calculator. The communications systems were like the Flintstones yelling into a dinosaur bone. The flaws showing the people filming the show are all posted here. It's a huge hoax that is soon to crumble as more people see that getting to the moon by 2020 is still not a likelihood, and the questions of radiation are going to be answered in a most unpleasant way to Apollo believers.

Edited by turbonium, 30 July 2005 - 04:30 PM.


#231    Q-La

Q-La

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 739 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2004
  • Location:conscious state 01

  • much to learn for a small cranium

Posted 30 July 2005 - 04:35 PM

Oh don't worry, the Chinese are planning a landing and will locate the flag for you soon, if it is there grin2.gif .

Qrious at a healthy and happy level.
Examine and study the body
Analyse the mind
But the heart escapes scholarly devices

Verbal violence is the defense of those who think they know enough
You are what you choose yourself to be and you will find out who you are with what you do

#232    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 30 July 2005 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE(Q-La @ Jul 30 2005, 09:35 AM)
Oh don't worry, the Chinese are planning a landing and will locate the flag for you soon, if it is there grin2.gif .

View Post


HAHAHA!! ''If'' is the key word here!   laugh.gif  no.gif

Edited by turbonium, 30 July 2005 - 04:43 PM.


#233    Pseudomorph

Pseudomorph

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 114 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2005
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 July 2005 - 05:06 PM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Jul 30 2005, 06:43 PM)
QUOTE(Q-La @ Jul 30 2005, 09:35 AM)
Oh don't worry, the Chinese are planning a landing and will locate the flag for you soon, if it is there grin2.gif .

View Post


HAHAHA!! ''If'' is the key word here!   laugh.gif  no.gif

View Post



Unless they get paid by NASA to "film" the supposed flag as if being there, dusty and torn of so many solar storms...  whistling2.gif


#234    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,139 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 30 July 2005 - 06:05 PM

Turbonium,
If you really want answers to your questions, why not ask them at the apollohoax.net board?  There are many people that post there much more qualified than me to answer any questions about testing, blueprints, comparison to the shuttle, etc.  However, I think you don't really want any answers.  You've made up your mind and don't care what evidence is out there to say otherwise.  I'd love you to prove me wrong about this but I think you won't.

As far as computer power, how much computing is really necessary to go to the moon?  I suggest you check this page out.
http://www.clavius.org/techcomp.html

As for testing of the lunar module, a quick search turned up many links, which you could have easily done if you were really interested.  
This link shows the different LMs that were built and what missions they were on.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module

These links cover the testing of the LM in lunar orbit during Apollo 10
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo10/Apollo10.html
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_10a_Summary.htm

This link covers Apollo 9 which tested the LM in earth orbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_9

It was also previously tested on Apollo 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_5

Again all of this was very easy to find.  One would think you haven't done your research.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#235    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 31 July 2005 - 03:31 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Jul 30 2005, 05:19 AM)
The only prototype tested just before Apollo 11 crashed.

There were FIVE LLxV's, and none of them were ever "prototypes" for the LM.


QUOTE
Is there any reason to adequately explain why the blueprint originals and all copies for both the lem and the rover were destroyed?

Who told you they were all destroyed?


QUOTE
They should have protected them safely like the Declaration of Independence, they were of such historical and scientific importance.

Why?


QUOTE
What I think is that they could not do it due to lack of adequate technological advancements to overcome the environmental hazards and logistical problems.

Think what you like, but you're wrong.


QUOTE
If we were advanced enough to land men on the moon six times over 30 years ago, we would not be still trying to make the Shuttle just orbit Earth without blowing up.

Shuttles have orbited the earth hundredes if not thousands of times without blowing up.  Which, by percentages, is a better record than Apollo.  Oh, wait... if Apollo's success rate is evidence that it was fake, doesn't that mean the shuttle's better success rate mean it's even more fake?



#236    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 31 July 2005 - 03:35 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Jul 30 2005, 12:26 PM)
The computers were less powerful than a 5 dollar calculator.

For the moment, let's assume that this is accurate .  Why is that inadequate for the tasks assigned to it?



#237    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 31 July 2005 - 04:11 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Jul 27 2005, 07:36 PM)
There are a couple of other frames where you can still see the green color of the man's shirt

What "other frames?"  There are exactly FOUR frames in which this section of the LM is visible: the two I posted above, and these two, which immediate preceed those:

user posted image

user posted image

The first only shows green trailing the lower-forward RCS plume deflector support strut, and in the highlights of the foil, all of which are quite clearly the results of color ghosting.

The second shows no significant areas of green, because there is far less motion in the frame.


QUOTE
it has nothing to do with "color ghosting"

It has everything to do with color ghosting.


QUOTE
I'll post the DVD stills tonight.

So you keep claiming.  "Tonight" was 4 days ago.  Lets review, shall we?


QUOTE(turbonium @ Jul 24 2005, 03:39 AM)
Angle 2 w/o subtitles is just as brutal and I will post it since you've asked.

View Post


That was a week ago.

QUOTE(turbonium @ Jul 25 2005, 02:31 AM)
I'll have the DVD tomorrow to post the stills, btw.

View Post


"Tomorrow" was 5 days ago.

So, where are they?  If you're not going to post them, just say so, and I'll obtain them elsewhere.  However, this vaporware presentation of evidence might lead one to believe that you are reluctant to present it because it doesn't support your claims.




#238    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 31 July 2005 - 07:46 AM

QUOTE(DataCable @ Jul 30 2005, 09:11 PM)
QUOTE
it has nothing to do with "color ghosting"

It has everything to do with color ghosting.

View Post



I know you're trying to make an issue out of the fact I haven't posted the stills yet - don't worry, I'm delayed because my dvd player is on the fritz, so I'm borrowing one to transfer to my computer. If you think I'm avoiding it you're quite incorrest. I'm hoping tonight to do it, and then you'll see I'm not lying about the crap quality.

What is the source of the photo you posted, btw? I'd like to see the original source for it, since you cropped it and didn't show the original photo.
These are the frames in sequence - there are reference points I've hilighted so you can see that these are not random, imaginary shapes. The objects remain consistent in form throughout, and there is movement throughout the sequence. The people are moving, the "shade" is moving down. These are evident by looking at all the frames to see how the entire structure is arranged. Look at how the same objects are seen in the frames I've pointed out. Another good point of reference that I didn't point out here is the white  object on the surface top. It is a "phone" shape and is in all 4 bottom frames. It makes it easy to see that the shade is being pulled down, and the narrowing view of the people behind it. The black monitor is also seen in 3 separate frames, so we know that is a consistently same-shaped object. There is no way that this is reflective foil from the lem - there are distinct movements of the people and objects. The lem foil does not move. It is impossible to dispute the movements from these frames and the actual video.
user posted image
user posted image


#239    Nethius

Nethius

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Joined:24 Jun 2003
  • Location:Nova Scotia

Posted 02 August 2005 - 08:39 PM

QUOTE(frenat @ Jul 30 2005, 06:05 PM)
Turbonium,
If you really want answers to your questions, why not ask them at the apollohoax.net board?  There are many people that post there much more qualified than me to answer any questions about testing, blueprints, comparison to the shuttle, etc.  However, I think you don't really want any answers.  You've made up your mind and don't care what evidence is out there to say otherwise.  I'd love you to prove me wrong about this but I think you won't.


I've suggested this before but to the Bad Astronomy site, he refuses, he thinks everyone just follows what Phil Plait says, and no one has their own opinion on anything.  He basically refuses to accept any answers from anyone with education in the specific fields...  Rockets/Space Travel/Film....  According to him they all do what Phil tells them to do.  But we both know why he wont post at those sites.


#240    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,139 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 02 August 2005 - 08:54 PM

He has been posting at the Apollohoax.net board recently though just not with those questions.  The difference is there are engineers, rocket scientists and people whose life-long hobbies are studying Apollo on that board.  Many of them could easily answer the questions he's brought up.  They don't post here so he asks the questions here.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users