Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
turbonium

NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!

548 posts in this topic

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

762857[/snapback]

And which do you suppose is the more difficult mission?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

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.

762842[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

762980[/snapback]

HAHAHA!! ''If'' is the key word here! laugh.gifno.gif

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh don't worry, the Chinese are planning a landing and will locate the flag for you soon, if it is there grin2.gif .

762980[/snapback]

HAHAHA!! ''If'' is the key word here! laugh.gifno.gif

762988[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only prototype tested just before Apollo 11 crashed.

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

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?

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

Why?

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

it has nothing to do with "color ghosting"

It has everything to do with color ghosting.

I'll post the DVD stills tonight.

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

Angle 2 w/o subtitles is just as brutal and I will post it since you've asked.

750689[/snapback]

That was a week ago.

I'll have the DVD tomorrow to post the stills, btw.

751959[/snapback]

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it has nothing to do with "color ghosting"

It has everything to do with color ghosting.

763826[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

768751[/snapback]

Wrong - my whole posting there was based on two things - the video footage from "A Funny Thing Happenned on the way to the Moon" and the stills I'm posting here. They haven't answered the questions on the stills to my satisfaction with alternatives such as "gold foil". Don't try and twist it around, bud. Check it out yourself - I'm also bringing up the VLT and that it can take images of the "Apollo landing sites". I haven't even started that one here. The claim over there was that they cannot take images that show much because of the fact there is no telescopes powerful enough on Earth. I pointed out that there are - the VLT can do just that, and was supposed to already have done so, but nothing was mentioned since. Guess you don't need to have a PhD in Astronomy to point out a mistake, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

768724[/snapback]

I joined Apollohoax back in June - check it out before you make things up like your entire post here. And I don't post and run - I back up my claims, as you'll see if you really take the effort to look. "Refusing to accept an answer" is quite the joke - "yes, I must accept the answer because you know and I don't". How cute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone see the National Geographic special on the "Apollo Conspriacy"?

It was informative, and pretty much wiped out the theorists points, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it last night. It was great. You crazy conspiracy theorists should really watch it. I guess it will be ignored though. It does a good job disproving hoax theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are other forums where people actually discuss the details of this lunar landing hoax theory, and they get answers to questions.

It is almost insane to put a couple frames of video on a message, say that they show a bare arm in the picture, and claim someone "pixelated" them to cover up the evidence od some moon hoax. These pictures show nothing...and, it should be noted that there was virtually no video of the Apollo 12 EVAs. The camera was fried shortly after Conrad and Bean stepped out on the surface and inadvertently pointed the lens at the sun...essentially frying the poor thing.

It is equally silly to have a bunch of people making ridiculous statements without backing them up with anything. The Apollo moon landing hoax is the product of young people (given impetus by a couple of older ones who perhaps do know better(or at least, ought to), but want to make some money at the expense of the ignorance of an entire generation...i.e. Kaysing, Rene, etc.), removed from the events by sometimes over a generation, who live in a world where nothing quite so compelling and far-reaching has happened for over 30 years, and who are, as a result, gullible enough to believe in such a far-fetched joke as this Apollo moon landing hoax business.

I participated in Apollo. I can tell you, as one who lived it, that there is absolutely nothing in any actual photograph taken that shows anything but regular photographic results. For some reason, the photographs, showing only natural phenomena that you simply never noticed and which are common on many an Earth photo, have become an issue supporting this idiocy. I cannot see why.

Hoaxters have no idea what they're talking about, they have little knowledge of what they speak of, mis-interpret, or actually mis-represent some things outright, and make themselves look...stupid (sorry, I can't think of a better word to describe some of the feeble arguements I've seen).

Please...ask a question. Don't present feeble arguements and idiotic stills from some video that no one can see any detail in to support some ridiculous position.

Please also..."A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" is junk, put together by another idiot out to make a buck on someone else's ignorance. Apparently, he has! Let it go.

There are no non-parallel shadows, no multiple light sources, no alien sightings by astronauts on the Moon...and oh, the VLT is the largest optical array in the world, but it's best images of the Moon have a resolution of 130 meters...the best ground based photos of the Moon ever obtained, but still about 6-7 times less than the resolution the Hubble is capable of, and even THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO IMAGE OBJECTS THAT ARE AT THEIR LARGEST 4 METERS ACROSS.

How feeble can people get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are other forums where people actually discuss the details of this lunar landing hoax theory, and they get answers to questions.

It is almost insane to put a couple frames of video on a message, say that they show a bare arm in the picture, and claim someone "pixelated" them to cover up the evidence od some moon hoax. These pictures show nothing...and, it should be noted that there was virtually no video of the Apollo 12 EVAs.  The camera was fried shortly after Conrad and Bean stepped out on the surface and inadvertently pointed the lens at the sun...essentially frying the poor thing. 

It is equally silly to have a bunch of people making ridiculous statements without backing them up with anything.  The Apollo moon landing hoax is the product of young people (given impetus by a couple of older ones who perhaps do know better(or at least, ought to), but want to make some money at the expense of the ignorance of an entire generation...i.e. Kaysing, Rene, etc.), removed from the events by sometimes over a generation, who live in a world where nothing quite so compelling and far-reaching has happened for over 30 years, and who are, as a result, gullible enough to believe in such a far-fetched joke as this Apollo moon landing hoax business. 

I participated in Apollo.  I can tell you, as one who lived it, that there is absolutely nothing in any actual photograph taken that shows anything but regular photographic results.  For some reason, the photographs, showing only natural phenomena that you simply never noticed and which are common on many an Earth photo, have become an issue supporting this idiocy.  I cannot see why. 

Hoaxters have no idea what they're talking about, they have little knowledge of what they speak of, mis-interpret, or actually mis-represent some things outright, and make themselves look...stupid (sorry, I can't think of a better word to describe some of the feeble arguements I've seen).

Please...ask a question.  Don't present feeble arguements and idiotic stills from some video that no one can see any detail in to support some ridiculous position.

Please also..."A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" is junk, put together by another idiot out to make a buck on someone else's ignorance.  Apparently, he has!  Let it go.

There are no non-parallel shadows, no multiple light sources, no alien sightings by astronauts on the Moon...and oh, the VLT is the largest optical array in the world, but it's best images of the Moon have a resolution of 130 meters...the best ground based photos of the Moon ever obtained, but still about 6-7 times less than the resolution the Hubble is capable of, and even THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO IMAGE OBJECTS THAT ARE AT THEIR LARGEST 4 METERS ACROSS.

How feeble can people get?

775341[/snapback]

Wrong - the VLT can take hi-res images close-up of the landng sites - but they haven't. You don't (or don't want) to see a flesh toned arm moving about, that is OK. But, sorry, bud, it's not idiotic, it's there plain as day to me and many others I've shown them to. There is no adequate alternative explanation that I've heard yet, to make me believe it is otherwise. They DID pixelate the video as well, that's another thing myself and many others can easily see as well. So that's just how it is, you don't agree - OK by me, I don't care. If you can't see it I have my own opinion about that as well. The moon hoax, amazingly, is very touchy to people who might even believe in alien abductions before a moon hoax. It's a shock to some to think it even possible. Well, better brace yourself for a letdown, I believe the truth will eventually come out that it was a great big hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong - the VLT can take hi-res images close-up of the landng sites - but they haven't.

They can? Better tell them! Would you happen to have a source regarding this? Let me guess we've got the European's in on the hoax too...

Try reading their website...

http://www.eso.org/

Would you be able to spot a Lunar Lander in this picture?

The Moon

Edited by Nethius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people seem to have the need to believe in all of these conspriacies no matter what proof is shown. It is sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people seem to have the need to believe in all of these conspriacies no matter what proof is shown. It is sad.

775992[/snapback]

Unfortunately, you are correct.

And the reply I received is pretty much exactly what I expected. Quote my entire message and address only the VLT issue...which is so simplistic that it's almost hilarious. There is no such resolving capacity on this planet, or in orbit, which he'll see if he visits the web page he was directed to.

He didn't address the photo comments, or anything else. He simply harped on his inadequate knowledge of the VLT resolution cpability.

There is precious little large telescope availability for professional astronomers. There's a waiting list at every single unit worldwide. There is also no way anyone's going to get time...or even attempt to waste time trying to image an Apollo lunar landing site. There is no scientific value in the endeavor, especially given the fact that we have mapping images from lunar orbiting satellites and Apollo mapping cameras that far and away exceed anything that any Earth bound telescope, or even the HST can image. The idea of imaging something that we know is there and has been documented more fully than any other human venture in history is ludicrous...especially to a professional astronomer. The point is, even if we could image these sites clearly, we wouldn't bother.

The moon hoax is a reflection of the degradation in society's attitudes since the decade of the 1960s. We have on the whole become a more comfort-conscious people, and, unfortunately lazy in many areas...intellectually being perhaps paramount among them. The comforts, largely afforded by the technological explosion of the 1960s and early 1970s, are almost all the result of Apollo! The computer our friend spends alot of time at is one of those things...

Short-sighted governments of course curtailed Apollo, and virtually all future applications and exploration programs. Thus, as far as manned space exploration is concerned, there has been none since 1972. The Shuttle is ignored by most people, save when there's a problem. Young people, which our friend is likely one of (and if he's not, he's hopeless), have had nothing compelling to inspire them along these lines in their lives. Education standards have lowered, and consciousness has become mired in a sort of evolutionary stasis.

Given that reality, a few people, older one's, unfortunately, have played upon a generation and more who are removed from the glory days of space exploration, see a gold mine, and have mined it with innane arguements concerning a hoaxed lunar landing.

It is somewhat understandable that an unknowledgeable younger generation could be swayed by such craftily constructed pieces that people like Bill Kaysing and Bart Siebrel have put together. To those of us who lived the accomplishments of the past, such things are almost comically ridiculous, since it is apparent that these people have utterly no real knowledge about that which they speak. But to younger and more impressionable people who aren't even tought anything about space flight and the accomplishments of the prior generation or so, these things can be very influential.

The only reason I ever get involved in discussions on the matter is to educate, and try to stimulate younger people to actually go find out what's really happened. Perhaps that will be a stimulous for the younger folks to actually press forward and begin again what we started long ago.

However, that can be very difficult, when someone obviously has a difficult time following a moderately lengthy post, and whose opinions, based on little really, are seemingly etched in stone.

It's a somewhat sad reflection on the state of intellect in the modern age...

To me, it is not a shock that the moon hoax exists. It is a sad state of affairs perhaps, although somewhat humorous as well. I am somewhat alarmed that a relatively significant number of young people actually buy into this idea...without ever having learned anything about it. The smarter ones ask questions...they don't make assertions. They also get answers which hopefully, will stimulate self-investigation into the technical complexities involved. If they come with their "opinions", which of course are based on little substance, and insist upon them, rather than asking questions, then unfortunately they are a lost cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIX TIMES without a hitch...please don't try and dissect sentences to try and manipulate what has been said. It's a ridiculous tactic. And it's just as irrelevant to the issue to focus on the rounding to 40 years I put in. Make a logical reply to my postings of moon landing fakery, with some evidence of your own, or you're wasting your time and mine!

700264[/snapback]

The fact is that all manned lunar landing missions had "hitches" that turbonium is unaware of (as are most people who weren't actually involved...). As pertains to landings, Apollo 11 (program alarms, and a very long final phase which had everyone holding their breath ), Apollo 14 (an aberrant abort mode indication which could've made the landing a very bad day had it not been cleared up prior to TIG), and Apollo 16 (a CSM SPS steering system malfunction)all had "hitches" which threatened to either cancel or abort their landing attempts.

Nothing went without a hitch.

...especially Apollo 1 and Apollo 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.