Were the moon landings faked

[It’sallbsParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

Rennie wrote:

The reason they didn’t go back, they just couldn’t justify the cost involved in going there and after a few missions, the public lost interest, so there was little point to continuing.

The last missions where they drove the rover to take samples were archeological expeditions to answer allot of the questions that arose from the questions that arose from going there in the first place.

My father saw allot of the components from briefings at work, I remember saying the oxygen valves opened and closed in the blink of an eye, he also said we’re beating the Russians through miniaturization in our electronics, he said they had to build bigger rockets just to get the electronics into space!

He started in SAC on a B-36 radar tail gunner, he was an electronics wizard, worked in electronics then got a job at Bendix Corp Aerospace Division assembling and troubleshooting inertia guidance systems, gyros, accelerometers, white room stuff, he said some of the guys would lift their hoodie and shake their hair in front of the scrubbers that would set off alarms, he said some of the equipment was so tiny and fragile that a common piece of dust in the right place would do as much damage as a boulder dropped on a car. He built his own color TV from a kit in 1965, brought home miniature sealed bearings he put on our slot car wheels (remember those?), some of the bearings were so small the head of a pen wouldn’t fit through the race, He met Wernher Von Braun too, the father of the Saturn 5.

Hey Rennie, I recommend the Space Center for anyone that has a doubt, now a private company has delivered a load to the space station and your smart phone has enough computing power to outperform the ground and space based computer systems from the Apollo missions, and still have enough power to run the Soviet Cosmodrome!

Space race never happened? I must have imagined the whole thing?

I’ve been to the Kennedy Space Centre 3 times. What they tell you there is about as real as the theme parks in f~~~in Orlando.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[mumitrollSpectator 103]

the moon landings were absolutely real. there are several simple proofs:

1) the Apollo missions brought back quite a lot of lunar soil, and provided some of it for analysis to the Soviet space agencies. Who have analyzed it and found it was exactly the same (and 100% originated from the Moon) as the lunar soil probes that the Soviet Luna probes had brought back to Earth before.

2) the lander modules and the rovers with mirrors on them are still standing around in the Sea of Tranquility. it’s easy to pinpoint them with a powerful laser from the Earth and get the reflection back (and measure it). actually it’s been done https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment (it’s even been in a Big Bang Theory episode).

there’s actually quite a few lander modules and rovers with mirrors on the Moon by now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon so that pretty much everybody with a budget for a powerful excimer laser and a sensitive photoelectric panel can verify it for himself.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

What’s with all the conspiracy theory bulls~~~ here lately?

I’m expecting to see flat earthers next.

Is it all some attempt to smear MGTOW as gullible tinfoil hatters?

blade wrote:

But i do question with the space shuttle program why they never returned . F~~~ couldn’t they of even landed the shuttle itself on that rock .

The space shuttle barely achieves low earth orbit. It doesn’t have the thrust to get anywhere near earth escape velocity, must less a lunar transfer.

Have you ever seen a space shuttle compared to a Saturn-V? The shuttle is tiny by comparison. And when you compare their main boosters it’s even wimpier. The shuttle main engines produce about 2000 kiloNewtons each, and it only has three of them. The Saturn-V main engines push out about 7500 kN each, which is more than the shuttle orbiter engines combined, and it has five of them. And that’s just its first stage.

The Saturn-V was a f~~~ing BEAST, and it was just barely enough to get a few tons to the moon and back. The space shuttle? Not a chance.

Also if America didn’t land on the moon and not leave s~~~ behind wouldn’t you think the Chinese would be out to discredit it with having there robotic rover scanning the landing area .

A number of later lunar missions have taken photographs of the Apollo landing sites, including the Germans in 2009 (technically it was the ESA, but actually it was the Germans) and the Chinese in 2010.

[RennieParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

What’s with all the conspiracy theory bulls~~~ here lately?

I’m expecting to see flat earthers next.

Is it all some attempt to smear MGTOW as gullible tinfoil hatters?

There are actually some flat earth nutters running around here – who vehemently insist that the earth is flat – just haven’t seen them lately.

As for the conspiracy nonsense, well that’s just an issue of people who believe themselves to be more enlightened than everyone else, because they read some tripe on a backwater internet site. It’s very irritating.

There was one guy around here who frequently spouts off stuff like that and actually once boasted about how much smarter he was than everyone else… But you can tell this guy never did any research beyond the sources that told him what he wanted to hear.

[SunStormParticipant 1277]

Thanasi wrote:

Russky2 wrote:

I believe that U.S.A went to the moon. But I wonder how much power and energy they would require to proper a rocket that has to be thick enough to get through Van Allen belt without BBQing the spacemen inside. But at the same time, the first MAN in space was Russian, so somehow he made it back alive too!

Exactly! Finally someone with a brain! Rarely have I heard anyone mention this fact. Space is dangerous, akin to putting yourself in a microwave oven, set the timer on and turn on, and then sit there for the one-year journey to Mars.

Exactly. The Mars mission stuff is a joke…..just hot air…a distraction… nothing will come of it… Perhaps humanity one day will be able to devise a light flexible material with the radiation shielding properties of lead…then there might be a chance of manned space travel beyond low Earth orbit…until then…nope. Never was and never will.

[SunStormParticipant 1277]

Anonymous wrote:

^^^^He deserved it, what those guys did was far from being cowards, nobody ever felt further from the comfort of home than those guys! NO ONE!

Bit of an emotive based response there Tower….

Stick to the facts here and don’t just get carried away by the emotive angle… That’s what separates the mens from the wimmins.

Any comment about what could possibly power a spacesuit to refrigerate astronauts for three days in 250 degrees radiant heat?

How the astronauts were protected by radiation NASA now admits is a major obstacle to manned space missions?

Buzz punching that guy shows guilt. Violence only comes when you feel threatened.

A guy exposing the lie of the Moon landing is definitely a threat to Buzz hence the punch.

If he’d really gone to the moon he would have just laughed and shrugged. Basic psychology.

Your dad may have worked in the field but the whole thing was compartmentalised.

Most of the tech was real…..except the spacesuit. That would not be able to keep the men from being slow cooked .

[Anonymous 42]

SunStorm wrote:

Bit of an emotive based response there Tower….

Stick to the facts here and don’t just get carried away by the emotive angle… That’s what separates the mens from the wimmins.

Go suck a dick!

SunStorm wrote:

Any comment about what could possibly power a spacesuit to refrigerate astronauts for three days in 250 degrees radiant heat?

Gee stupid, what about the 320f. below ZERO in the shade?

SunStorm wrote:

Buzz punching that guy shows guilt. Violence only comes when you feel threatened.

What would a c~~~ like yourself know about being INSULTED? Don’t answer that, I already know…

SunStorm wrote:

If he’d really gone to the moon he would have just laughed and shrugged. Basic psychology.

That’s what a C~~~ would do, Men went to the moon, not c~~~s like you!

SunStorm wrote:

Most of the tech was real…..except the spacesuit. That would not be able to keep the men from being slow cooked .

My dad told me the gold in their helmet face shields was so thin it was see through! Your ignorance is childlike and girlish, perhaps this isn’t the place for c~~~s like you…

[SunStormParticipant 1277]

Reign it in Tower for God’s sake.

[MagusParticipant 424]

SunStorm wrote:

Bit of an emotive based response there Tower….

Stick to the facts here and don’t just get carried away by the emotive angle… That’s what separates the mens from the wimmins.

Any comment about what could possibly power a spacesuit to refrigerate astronauts for three days in 250 degrees radiant heat?

How the astronauts were protected by radiation NASA now admits is a major obstacle to manned space missions?

Buzz punching that guy shows guilt. Violence only comes when you feel threatened.

A guy exposing the lie of the Moon landing is definitely a threat to Buzz hence the punch.

If he’d really gone to the moon he would have just laughed and shrugged. Basic psychology.

Your dad may have worked in the field but the whole thing was compartmentalised.

Most of the tech was real…..except the spacesuit. That would not be able to keep the men from being slow cooked .

Spacesuit temperature control? Explained here: http://www.space.com/21987-how-nasa-spacesuits-work-infographic.html

Radiation? It’s only being really discussed in detail now because of the Mars missions. Musk thinks all he has to do is put the water storage tanks between the sun and the humans. Nobody really knows how he’ll do it. But the radiation in worst case isn’t apparently that bad unless there is a CME headed right at you. Not likely.

A threat? No. More like a whiny woman of a man too stupid to deserve life imo. And when the whiner just kept pushing and there were no guards to take him away Buzz rightfully figured he could punch the bitch and not suffer and repercussions. Damn good call by Buzz which was entirely consistent with his life long persona of a real life James Kirk.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

SunStorm wrote:

Perhaps humanity one day will be able to devise a light flexible material with the radiation shielding properties of lead…

You say “radiation” as if you think it’s all the same thing. There are many different kinds, and using lead to shield against some kinds is actually a very bad idea.

SunStorm wrote:

Any comment about what could possibly power a spacesuit to refrigerate astronauts for three days in 250 degrees radiant heat?

It appears you are also confused about the difference between temperature and heat. They are related, but not quite the same thing. So to avoid that confusion, we need to look at it as a matter of energy transfer.

At one AU away from the sun, sunlight dumps about 1300 watts per square meter. This is not much more than the energy hitting the surface of the earth at about 1100 W/m². You don’t need a refrigerated suit to walk about on the surface of the earth, so why are you assuming you need massive refrigeration on the moon? A white suit with a bit of insulation is all that’s needed with a water heat reservoir to stabilize the temperature. This takes a little power, but only enough to run a small pump to keep the water jacket flowing. Do you think they use massive refrigeration systems on the suits used on space walks from the space shuttle? Because they’re operating in pretty much the same thermal environment as the moon. Keeping the astronaut cool from his own body heat is more of a concern than solar heating, especially since EVA suits have to be pretty heavily armored against impacts. At least on the moon you only have to worry about micrometeorites coming down from above, not from all around you, and there’s significantly less space junk hurtling around the moon waiting to puncture an unlucky spacewalker.

How the astronauts were protected by radiation NASA now admits is a major obstacle to manned space missions?

That’s an obstacle to long term manned space missions. The Apollo missions lasted for a few days. That’s no big deal. A mission to Mars, assuming it uses the most efficient and also slowest transfer orbit, would take about nine months each way, but you also have to wait around at mars for more than a year until the next transfer orbit window to come back. That’s a long time in space, and it’s estimated it will result in a cumulative ionizing radiation dose of about two thirds of a sievert, which is a lot all in one go, but it’s still less than NASA’s current cumulative limit of one sievert. And right now there are russians who have spent about that long in space and received well over the NASA one sievert limit, and they’re still walking and breathing. So either it’s not as big a game killer as you believe, or those russians are really f~~~ing hard core, or we have underestimated the healing powers of vodka.

A bigger concern is actually working out what the astronauts will eat and drink in that time and how they’ll minimize tissue atrophy from the microgravity environment.

Buzz punching that guy shows guilt. Violence only comes when you feel threatened.

Oh please. Buzz punched that guy because that guy was an asshole who needed punching, and Buzz was just the man for the job.

If he’d really gone to the moon he would have just laughed and shrugged.

Armstrong might have smiled and shook his head and walked away.

But Buzz isn’t Neil, and he doesn’t take s~~~ like that from assholes.

Basic psychology.

There’s no such thing.

[Sky-OParticipant 18936]

Everyone knows the moon is real and the landings actual happened.

But NASA isn’t going to release any information related to the treaty they signed with the Decepticons (Transformers) to allow them use of the dark side of the moon.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

there are close up pictures on the internets of lunar landings anyone with a telescope could witness – see all the tracks and artifacts. this proves moon landings were real

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[DybbukParticipant 182]

sidecar wrote:

What’s with all the conspiracy theory bulls~~~ here lately?

I’m expecting to see flat earthers next.

Is it all some attempt to smear MGTOW as gullible tinfoil hatters?

Hard core conspiracy theorists have a form of mental illness. Basically their identity is all tied up in the notion of being superior to others. The inferiority of others is defined by their naivete in accepting conventional wisdom. So the conspiracy theorist jumps on any opportunity to reject conventional wisdom, because it’s like adding another medal to their uniform, providing one more piece of evidence for their imagined superiority.

It’s not surprising to see a form of this within MGTOW. Around here it’s called “the red pill”: the idea that the gullible majority accepts sappy conventional wisdom about male/female relations, but I AM SUPERIOR because I know the elusive truth. It’s not *exactly* the same thing, but it’s close enough that you’d expect to see a lot of “comoribidity”, to use a medical term.

[Pedal, run, rowParticipant]

Surely those suits have been available to people/scientists throughout the years. It wouldn’t be hard to test them. I would think if they were bogus we would have heard about it by now in a scientific publication.

[SunStormParticipant 1277]

Pedal, run, row wrote:

Surely those suits have been available to people/scientists throughout the years. It wouldn’t be hard to test them. I would think if they were bogus we would have heard about it by now in a scientific publication.

I would not often consider members here to be naive but you just made me raise an eyebrow and sigh a little.

[SunStormParticipant 1277]

Russky wrote:

… anyone with a telescope could witness – see all the tracks and artifacts. this proves moon landings were real

No. You can’t. It’s impossible to observe such small objects even using the Hubble telescope….because they’re not there.

No such thing as 3rd party evidence….all ‘evidence’ for Moon landings comes from NASA and NASA alone…. their lunar orbital satellite shows images of lunar gear which are probably doctored images just to shore up the hoax.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

SunStorm wrote:

No. You can’t. It’s impossible to observe such small objects even using the Hubble telescope….because they’re not there.

No such thing as 3rd party evidence….all ‘evidence’ for Moon landings comes from NASA and NASA alone…. their lunar orbital satellite shows images of lunar gear which are probably doctored images just to shore up the hoax.

Bulls~~~.

I’ve already mentioned how the Chinese, Germans, and Russians have also photographed the lunar landing sites. Seriously, do you not know how to google this s~~~ before posting?

We also sent the Russians samples of the moon rocks collected by Apollo. The Russians found them to be identical to the samples they, themselves collected with their unmanned landers.

If the paranoid as f~~~ 1970s Russians accepted the fact that we did, in fact, land men on the moon, why can’t you?

SunStorm wrote:

I would not often consider members here to be naive but you just made me raise an eyebrow and sigh a little.

Instead of calling men here naive, how about you actually support your position with facts and reasoning? Also merely repeating your assertions does not count as either.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Pedal, run, row wrote:

It wouldn’t be hard to test them.

It’s not necessary.

The whole “refrigeration” argument is itself invalid. All it proves is the person making it doesn’t understand physics, thermodynamics, or the differences between radiation, conduction, and convection.

Basically, if you understand how a thermos flask works, you understand how the whole “refrigeration” argument is a poorly conceived canard.

And don’t get me started on the Van Allen belt hogwash. Anyone who understand what a belt is knows how to deal with that one.

[MagusParticipant 424]

SunStorm: You are half right. It is impossible to see from the earth unless you had much larger telescopes than currently exist. However from space, closer up, it has been verified many times with photos from many countries.

Conspiracy theory? I don’t like the term. If there is ever any question about something it should be looked into. If there is doubt about a subject it should be explored. In the case of traveling to the moon there does not seem to be any reasonable doubt since every detail proving it happened is available for the asking.

[SunStormParticipant 1277]

sidecar wrote:

SunStorm wrote:

No. You can’t. It’s impossible to observe such small objects even using the Hubble telescope….because they’re not there.

No such thing as 3rd party evidence….all ‘evidence’ for Moon landings comes from NASA and NASA alone…. their lunar orbital satellite shows images of lunar gear which are probably doctored images just to shore up the hoax.

Bulls~~~.

I’ve already mentioned how the Chinese, Germans, and Russians have also photographed the lunar landing sites. Seriously, do you not know how to google this s~~~ before posting?

We also sent the Russians samples of the moon rocks collected by Apollo. The Russians found them to be identical to the samples they, themselves collected with their unmanned landers.

If the paranoid as f~~~ 1970s Russians accepted the fact that we did, in fact, land men on the moon, why can’t you?

SunStorm wrote:

I would not often consider members here to be naive but you just made me raise an eyebrow and sigh a little.

Instead of calling men here naive, how about you actually support your position with facts and reasoning? Also merely repeating your assertions does not count as either.

F~~~ off c~~~y.

I’m right you’re wrong.

Now change your f~~~ing sanitary towel you prick.

Hubble has no images of landing material.

No third party evidence of Apollo paraphenalia on the moon.

THE F~~~ING END.

Now f~~~ off back toy town you tosser.

[Author]

Posts