Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?


Waspie_Dwarf

Recommended Posts

Goodness. I'm off enjoying an early weekend break and I come back to this?

Rajeev, why are you continuing to refuse to answer any questions, in particular this very important one?

What is your BEST evidence that Apollo never took man to the moon?

And then, why are you also refusing to acknowledge when you get it wrong (which is pretty much everything), but as an example let's just focus on your FALSE information about no footage existing of the LM ascent stage engine testing? You've been shown a video... so admit you were WRONG.

Frankly, you are acting like a very cowardly person, and one who will happily lie and refuse to learn or accept when you screw up. That means you are MISUSING and ABUSING this forum - I trust the moderators are watching.

But I'll now address EVERY SINGLE FALSEHOOD you have posted recently, so here goes. Note that I am NOT a COWARD and I quote and answer EVERYTHING you post, except where it is completely incomprehensible. Why don't you try acting like an adult?

All small and big rocket motors have to go through the bench/static test even some of them are meant to use in orbit (still vacuum) or deep space.may be LEM engine never required to be working??

You've been shown a video, yet you still don't even acknowledge that such tests on Earth do not show the actual performance (in a vacuum and zero or 1/6G) of the engine. Interestingly you don't seem to be aware that these engines were single use and the actual engine used could not be pretested... I'm, guessing you are also unaware of the early Apollo flights where the engines *were* tested in the relevant conditions.

I'd also have to ask the question, why would anyone, no matter how deluded, think there will be a web-available movie of every rocket motor ever used, and that if they (incompetently, as it happens) can't find one, it indicates fakery? This stuff was done in 1969 for heaven's sake!

So, 100% wrong on that one, as usual Rajeev.

When Cable man told me abt hoax,i was shok then when i watched FOX TV's 'did we land on the moon' i was 60% doubted then i joined this forum in 2009 and researched more i was 98% then and i challange u to research more pics,video of Apollo,u will find Apollo CM-SM was a simple orbital machine not a lunar-space craft.

But you have lied to this forum before, so why should we believe you are telling the truth on cable-man? You even got your year of joining wrong, and then you just handwave - explain PRECISELY why the Apollo CSM (not CM-CSM) was a 'simple orbital craft'. What does that mean, exactly, and what evidence do you have to support it? And have you ever read a decent review of that Fox special? What in that special was your best evidence? Why does that sort of question scare you so much that you run away and won't quote it???

100% wrong on that one, as usual Rajeev.

?Dear i afraid there are more people coming forward and speak-out

In fact, the statistics clearly show that the number of Apollo deniers is in huge decline. Such idiocy is now rightly relegated to a few, clearly topic-ignorant or trolling, posters like yourself. The only places it gets much of a hearing are forums like Icke or Godlike or ATS... No badge of honour there, I can assure you.

100% wrong on that one, as usual Rajeev.

I have given {cable-man's} name initials to Mid ,he as well told me during 1968-69 he was laying telephone cables between Nevada and Houston M.C. what was the need of them cables?? He thought they used it to boost TVsignals from Nevada to Houston.

So what if you now claim to have given his name to MID - did MID bother to contact him? Has cable-man himself ever appeared on a forum, or is he another figment of your highly active imagination? Or did he just sucker you in with his story and the run away laughing? Where is he now - why doesn't he grow some cojones and appear here to speak for himself? Your anecdotes and hearsay are worthless - indeed WORSE than worthless given your dishonesty.

BTW, here's the map of cable-man's job - he laid cables here:

post-95887-0-91545900-1397210533_thumb.j

..........

I'm trying not to laugh - but does anyone else see a tiny problem with this story? Rajeev, you are truly the ultimate garbage machine, or more naive than anyone I have ever met...

100% wrong on that one, as usual Rajeev.

Who ever dare to speak-out he will no longer be credible ???

If, when they speak out, they spray excrement in every direction, then it is correct that they are not credible. You are not credible, Rajeev. Nor do you have the faintest clue on *anything* you have posted so far. Hmm, 100% right on that one, in sad, bakatcha sort of way...

....to be continued, but will Rajeev answer the burning question:

What is your BEST evidence that Apollo never took man to the moon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know Buzz Aldrin is a magician , he could change his gloves and boots in vacuum and 250 f temperature +lethal radiations , isn’t it amazing ? look he had first dark brown/black gloves and boots and later on during EVA he had White gloves and boots…he is a magician indeed so does NASA .

Amazing! You've proven that the lighting changes some depending on the direction you look!

Or not so amazing really. All you've shown is something that photographers have known for centuries.

And of course you parrot the "250 f temperature +lethal radiations" without understanding that temperature was a MAXIMUM temperature of the SURFACE. It takes time to heat up to that temp. All Apollo missions landed in lunar morning and none stayed long enough for the temps to climb that high. Even if they did, it would still be only the surface. The only part of their suits in contact with the surface is their boots.

As for "lethal radiations", without clarification as to the actual numbers (intensity, flux, duration, etc.) your statement means absolutely NOTHING. Do you have ANY clue about the types and intensities of the radiation involved or will this just be more handwaving and parroting of hoax sites that also don't understand the subject? I'm betting the latter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BE CAREFULL, you are attempting to insulte National Geographic magazine, i scanned these pics from orignal Dec. 1969 ,Vol.136,No-6 adi. Of NG and nobody ever say abt the quality of their images.

Stop edit them on PC.

BE CAREFUL, you are attempting to imply that a 40+ year old magazine had the light balance exactly right to start with, hasn't faded in the meantime, and that the scanning you did was perfect. Quit handwaving.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BE CAREFULL, you are attempting to insulte National Geographic magazine, i scanned these pics from orignal Dec. 1969 ,Vol.136,No-6 adi. Of NG and nobody ever say abt the quality of their images.

Stop edit them on PC.

BE CAREFULL, you are attempting to insult the Apollo astronauts and the thousands of other people involved in the project.

See it works both ways rajeev !

Speaking of insulting someone:

- are you going to appologise for the murder accusation in your post #2506 ?

By the way, you working with solid rockets don't have much relevance with regards to the Lunar Module engine, as it was a liquid propellant rocket.

If you have any knowledge of rockets, as you claim , you must know that the differences between liquid and solid rockets are very big. All rockets in the Apollo missions were liquid rockets.

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some better quality pictures:

AS11-40-5903

AS11-40-5948

In good quality photos not the junk that you copied from some HB site, you can see that the gloves and boots are gray.

Oh. Just in case you missed it, here's once again the proof that the LM engine was tested on Earth:

https://www.youtube....lQ&noredirect=1

Engine test starts at 17:20.

Please show some intellectual honesty and admit that you were wrong.

That is a great video and how insulting, to all those men and women who worked so hard to make this happen, to insinuate that it never happened and was one big fake-out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet, based on all available evidence, that this is the only type of "solid motor" Rajeev has any experience with:

est1511.jpg

:rolleyes:

Cz

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I discovered model rocketry at the same time Apollo 8 went to the moon. I was building and launching my own by the summer of Apollo 11. I remember designing one and getting the balance wrong; it was incredible to see it corkscrew across the sky.

Good times, good times.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it simple then a diagram to understand that in pressurized cabin if we install 'inside opening' emergency exit hatch,it will never open quickly unless you release the preasure of PURE flamable O2 of the cabin ? That exactly happened to the Apollo-1 case. Except Apollo-1 case USSR and USA always used 'outside opening' hatch. NASA insisted N.A.Co to put this killing hatch in Apollo-1

It is preferential to use inward opening hatches in vehicles that are exposed to low pressure; the hatch presses against the opening and helps to seal it shut. Both the LM and the Space Shuttle uses inward opening hatches for this reason, as well as every airliner that flies today.

Mercury and Gemini used outward opening hatches because the cabin space was so cramped that inward opening was not practical; Apollo was the first vehicle made that allowed the use of inward opening hatches. After the fire, this was changed, but they went back to the inward opening design with the Shuttle.

Notice that the Dragon Capsule hatch also opens inward:

Okay, so now how is all of this evidence of a hoax?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet, based on all available evidence, that this is the only type of "solid motor" Rajeev has any experience with:

Exactly my thought.

wile_e_coyote_zps232fe403.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that a static bench test ? :whistle:

Exactly my thought.

wile_e_coyote_zps232fe403.jpg

I call this Picture a hoax . :rolleyes:

The shadows are all wrong !

Where are the stars ?

How is he going to survive the radiation ?

If they could built these in the 40's, why aren't they still doing it today ?

My mom's friends collegues neighbour told me it was fake !

Wile E. Coyote is a known disinformation agent for the Ajax Corporation !

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that a static bench test ? :whistle:

I call this Picture a hoax . :rolleyes:

The shadows are all wrong !

Where are the stars ?

How is he going to survive the radiation ?

If they could built these in the 40's, why aren't they still doing it today ?

My mom's friends collegues neighbour told me it was fake !

Wile E. Coyote is a known disinformation agent for the Ajax Corporation !

Nono this is real and the pic was taken by cable-man and the ingnition lighter was borrowed from weed-pete! :yes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know Buzz Aldrin is a magician , he could change his gloves and boots in vacuum and 250 f temperature +lethal radiations , isn’t it amazing ? look he had first dark brown/black gloves and boots and later on during EVA he had White gloves and boots…he is a magician indeed so does NASA .

I see someone is stealing the Jack White claims.... claims which I conclusively proved wrong years ago.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see someone is stealing the Jack White claims.... claims which I conclusively proved wrong years ago.

Just proves all he is doing is regurgitating hoax sites. I also have a suspicion that he is a regular on the davidicke forum. I could be wrong and probably am but he reminds me of some of the more closed minded there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see someone is stealing the Jack White claims.... claims which I conclusively proved wrong years ago.

Yep. Following the HB playbook chapter by chapter. That's why I find it extremely hard to believe that he scanned those Apollo photos himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it simple then a diagram to understand that in pressurized cabin if we install 'inside opening' emergency exit hatch,it will never open quickly unless you release the preasure of PURE flamable O2 of the cabin ? That exactly happened to the Apollo-1 case. Except Apollo-1 case USSR and USA always used 'outside opening' hatch. NASA insisted N.A.Co to put this killing hatch in Apollo-1

'Killing hatch'? First it was murder, now they deliberately designed the hatch to kill? You really post some childishly stupid and deliberately misleading comments.

As Atomicdog and others have stated, there is nothing inherently wrong with that hatch design and it is has and is being used elsewhere, but in the case of Apollo 1 it was poorly implemented. No-one is denying that NASA did some stuff horribly wrong in Apollo 1 (but those errors were/are nowhere near as frequent and all-encompassing as yours - at least NASA had the guts to own up to theirs..). The Apollo 1 fire was a terrible tragedy and it shook NASA to the core, pretty much when it needed to.. It very nearly ended the Apollo program altogether. But out of that tragedy came a transparency and openness and commitment to safety that was unheard of at that time - one might even say that without that huge shakeup, which changed NASA forever, we would never have made it to the Moon and NASA would certainly be a much lesser organisation. Rajeev 100% wrong again.

Yah at least 3 years cotinuously on solid motors

Wow, without even sleeping? You are so full of it, Rajeev. Anyway, show us the rocket motors, and the nozzle designs, and the videos of the testing you did. What, you can't/won't? - then YOU ARE A FAKE.

how many of you have ever worked on rocket motors ?

Well, you haven't. Not liquid fuelled ones that are the type in question. Not in a vacuum. Not in 1/6G. And more importantly you've proven you don't understand either rocketry in general (your number of failures even tells us that!). IF YOU DID, instead of more meaningless handwaves, you would have said exactly what was wrong with the design. You didn't, because you couldn't. 100% wrong again.

no daubt on launching and orbited around the earth for 6-7 days do all docking undocking in low eath orbit

All of which was tested and verified and practiced with Gemini, and then the early Apollo missions. Do you seriously not know any of the history of the programs you are so eager to denigrate with such unlimited ignorance? 100% wrong again.

with LEM(LEM has suffiiant steering jet and RCS to achieve the docking/undocking)

Yes, it certainly does - if you think otherwise, show us your numbers. 100% wrong again.

and then throw the LEM and Apollo CM reentered happily

Just as the Mercury and Gemini capsules did, just as the early Apollo missions did, just as the Russians did... 100% wrong again.

all Moon activities were played back from earth on TV.

And yet, the ONLY way those transmissions could be received was to point a huge dish exactly at the Moon, and track it perfectly. Rajeev, even an idiot knows that you CANNOT place any sort of a transmitter into any orbit that aligns with the Moon... EXCEPT if it is right ON/AT the Moon. So the Moon transmissions were coming from the Moon. There is no room for your stupid fantasies on that one. 100% wrong again.

TRY TO PEEP ANY THING ABOUT APOLLO-1, you can see "inside opening hatch " there but you can't reach to it.it is locked some where at airforce base.???
Nothing is being hidden, nothing is being denied. You can't just make excrement up and post it. 100% wrong again.
totally developing them by my own. it took 29 explosions to properly understand the nature of GRAIN and finally master on it.

It took you 29 goes, with a simple, tiny solid-fuel rocket? Why am I not at all surprised at that? And what the hell does grain geometry have to do with liquid fueled rocketry? At least I presume that's what you mean - why did you capitalise it? 100% irrelevant.

Do you know Buzz Aldrin is a magician , he could change his gloves and boots in vacuum and 250 f temperature +lethal radiations , isn’t it amazing ? look he had first dark brown/black gloves and boots and later on during EVA he had White gloves and boots…he is a magician indeed so does NASA .

Wow, three demonstrations of unbelievable ignorance in one sentence. First up, Aldrin's boots were a light grey, but of course their appearance would depend on how the images were initially exposed and then later post-porocessed (overexposure = white, correct exposure = light grey, underexposure = dark grey). Second, the dust was static attracted, and once a large buildup had occurred and the staic charge somewhat dissipated, he could simply stamp his foot to shake much of it off. It is simply ridiculous and ignorant to think that the appearance of the boots would not change significantly dependent on all those factors. That sort of trivia is a complete waste of the forum's time, but at least it shows how delusions manifest themselves and the depths to which some people will plummet.

SECONDLY, the temperature (NOT HEAT) extremes on the Moon were in just one way like those on Earth, in that black asphalt/bitumen will also get to similarly high temperatures on a very hot day... but in EVERY other way, they are different. First up there is no atmosphere, so it is not 'hot' on the Moon, in fact the vacuum is VERY 'cold'. But things that are sunlit can get to high temperatures, depending on how long they are exposed to full sun, their colour, reflectivity and material, the angle of the Sun (which was always low in the sky for the Apollo EVAs) and also how much adjoining material was in shadow (and therefore radiating that heat load away). Thermodynamics on the Moon are complex, completely different to those on Earth - and way beyond the workings of a simple mind.......

THIRDLY, the radiation levels on the Moon are not that much different to those experienced by mountain climbers, and by people flying in commercial airliners at cruising altitude. The only big *potential* radiation hazard was if there had been a very large solar outburst, in which case they had procedures to abort the mission and get back to earth. If Rajeev thinks there was a hazard, he needs to state exactly what type of radiation, what amounts, and where it came from. I can list all that information and also give all the accumulated dosages the astronauts on every mission *actually* received, but it would be wasted on someone like Rajeev who is clearly incapable of proper debate. Anyone else need it?

I think by now everyone has noticed that Rajeev NEVER posts supporting information - he is only capable of parroting idiocy he finds on the Interwebz. It is PITIFUL.

300% wrong again.

i hate lying and hate to be called a layer...

Then stop doing it.

i have long ago posted my motor's pics do you want i repeat the same.

Are you unable to read? That's what he asked for. Do as you are asked and stop wasting our time.

And repeating the question:

Rajeev Shagun, what is your BEST evidence that Apollo never took man to the moon?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, from my personal p-o-v, I will NOT be responding to any new mindless crud posted by Rajeev. If he does not start:

  • answering questions
  • acknowledging and owning up to his now innumerable errors and misinformation, including quoting the full addressable content of posts
  • properly acknowledging the correct and VERIFIABLE information being posted by others and me

Then I would politely suggest that moderators take an appropriate course of action to ensure that those posting here do not abuse this forum...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ChrLzs,thats about as nice as one can be towards such a mental case,Speaking of cases ! We ought to Break open a case of the Finest whatever we can,and Toast to Mid !

He would of been into about page 500 on this topic showing our friend how Apollo actually worked ! Man I miss that Guy ! :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just proves all he is doing is regurgitating hoax sites. I also have a suspicion that he is a regular on the davidicke forum. I could be wrong and probably am but he reminds me of some of the more closed minded there.

But he told me he thought all of this up by himself???

BTW, from my personal p-o-v, I will NOT be responding to any new mindless crud posted by Rajeev. If he does not start:

  • answering questions
  • acknowledging and owning up to his now innumerable errors and misinformation, including quoting the full addressable content of posts
  • properly acknowledging the correct and VERIFIABLE information being posted by others and me

Then I would politely suggest that moderators take an appropriate course of action to ensure that those posting here do not abuse this forum...

I agree. Unless he fesses up to his, I am sure, previously diagnosed "issues" he is abusing this forum with drivel, lies and cheap contempt for one of the greatest achievements in human history.

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rajeev... Perhaps you could answer the questions that have been asked of you before you go tearing off on yet another incomprehensible tangent.

ChrLzs has asked you several, and I recently asked you this:

If you don't want to be called a liar, then stop acting like one.

Discuss this topic in good faith with some amount of intellectual honesty and please, just answer the questions. Avoiding them makes you look like you have no answers and aren't here to actually discuss or LEARN anything.

Cz

to recall your bad memory , MID finally told me so did your mates now that we can't find LEM's engine tests footage/images.

MID even said we never needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This right here is proof that you have no idea what you're talking about and definitely can not be taken seriously in any way shape or form.

You are saying that a low resolution, low quality, badly scanned pic of an image printed in a magazine that is almost 45-years old is a better representation of the scene than the high resolution, high quality image scanned directly from original negatives / first generation prints that AtomicDog posted from the NASA image archive...?

You sir, are truly an idiot.

There is little point in trying to discuss anything more with you... not that that's a surprise in the least...

Cz

Which page may get faded first front or the inside of the old magazine ? here are both pages scanned in one go, you can see Buzz is clearing having white gloves and boots.

Any way this book has been kept very well by previous owner. hope atomic has got his answer by now that did i do the real scanning from book. but shamelessly no HP will ever admit their faults.

P.S.

inside page of Buzz with white gloves was a big foldup page so it could reach to outside without torning .

post-102833-0-23565900-1397270584_thumb.

Edited by rajeev shagun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which page may get faded first front or the inside of the old magazine ? here are both pages scanned in one go, you can see Buzz is clearing having white gloves and boots.

Any way this book has been kept very well by previous owner. hope atomic has got his answer by now that did i do the real scanning from book. but shamelessly no HP will ever admit their faults.

P.S.

inside page of Buzz with white gloves was a big foldup page so it could reach to outside without torning .

You are either faking this and LYAO at us or are truly the most screwed up person to visit since Ove. I'll call liar on the education and age as well, now, so I am all in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rajeev... you really need to stop posting. All you are doing is proving your lack of education, lack of intellectual honesty and general lack of intelligence and observational skills.

This is what YOU are doing to YOURSELF here.

You need to stop.... Please...

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet, based on all available evidence, that this is the only type of "solid motor" Rajeev has any experience with:

est1511.jpg

:rolleyes:

Cz

Here are two pictures of my rocket motor test ( sorry they are not the best quality pictures)

If you can find an inch deep water ,you better try to sink in to that …keeping your face towards bottom .

post-102833-0-58804000-1397271222_thumb.

post-102833-0-02913500-1397271339_thumb.

Edited by rajeev shagun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.