The "Faked NASA moon landings" thread

by **scollon** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:31 am

This NASA page has details of the LM technologies. Everything a miracle of capitalist enterprise apparently One mistake in any of these thousands of subsystems and it would have been curtains. <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4-3.html">history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4-3.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In Apollo 11, Eagle landed at Tranquility Base, after burning its descent engine for 12 minutes, with only 20 seconds of landing fuel remaining<hr></blockquote> Sure lucky these good ol' boyz weren't sent to the moon by real American sociopaths with 11 minutes and 59 seconds of fuel never tested in 1/6 gravity, zero atmosphere. All those hundreds of millions of TV viewers and their kids would have have been very upset to see them die. We wouldn't have thought that we were smarter than the commies who had beaten us every step of the way up to that point. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/13/06 8:34 am

by **Trifecta** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:14 am

OUR ENIGMATIC MOON by N. Huntley, Ph.D. (December, 2005) N. Huntley, Ph.D. It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that the Moon is not what it appears; that it is not just another satellite orbiting a planet, Earth, but an entity which has thrown the minds of some of the greatest thinkers and scientific brains into a quandary and bewilderment unprecedented in the history of astronomy. Why haven't you heard about this? Another government cover-up? How could Moon mysteries have anything to do with government secrecy, and moreover could it relate to the suppression of the space programme? Let us outline some of the extraordinary anomalies and mysteries surrounding this puzzle. Clearly not all data will be equally reliable but the abundance of interrelated information nevertheless gives an overall picture which can be determined with some certainty. The first academic enigma must surely be that the Moon is apparently in its wrong orbit for its size. However, this would presumably be based on its assumed density. Technical reports claim a density of 3.3 for the Moon compared with 5.5 for Earth. Astronomy data indicates that the internal regions of the Moon are less dense than the outer, giving rise to the inevitable but outrageous speculation that it could be hollow. The eminent scientist Carl Sagan, a typical sceptic, made the statement, 'A natural satellite cannot be a hollow ob-ject'. But meaning here that if it is hollow, it is not a natural satellite---and therefore artificial. Possibly the strongest evidence for it to be a 'hollow ob-ject' comes from the fact that when meteors strike the Moon, the latter rings like a bell. More specifically when the Apollo crew in November 20, 1969 released the lunar module, after returning to the orbiter, the module impact with the Moon caused their seismic equipment to register a continuous reverberation like a bell for more than an hour. The same effect occurred with Apollo 13's third stage which caused the Moon to ring for over three hours. So what's going on with the Moon? Two Soviet scientists, Vasin and Shcherbokov, have spent much of their careers examining the facts compiled on lunar phenomena. Their conclusion is that the Moon is artificial, possibly a hollowed-out planet, and that it was steered from some distant region of the galaxy into a circular orbit around our planet (hence the extraordinary mystery of rock and Moon-dust age variations). They claim that intellectual life has existed in the Moon for eons. In 1968 as Apollo 8 moved into orbit around the Moon, the astronauts spotted a colossal extraterrestrial ob-ject, which then had disappeared on the next orbit. Photographs were taken, of course, but not released to the public. On another occasion when the lunar excursion module was down to 4-5 miles from the Moon's surface astronauts witnessed a UFO suddenly rise from a crater and rapidly disappear. In 1969 Aldrin was checking the lunar surface from orbit, when two UFOs appeared, moved towards the Apollo rocket, hovered nearby, then to Aldrin's utter astonishment the UFOs joined to form one entity. Furthermore, astronauts of Apollo 11 saw a spacefleet of UFOs lined up in a crater. Almost every Moon mission involved encounters with UFOs or UFO sightings, not to mention the discovery of many bases on the Moon's surface. Renowned astronomer Patrick Moore discovered over one hundred dome-like buildings. In fact, about one thousand such bases, dome-like structures of diameter around 700 feet, have been witnessed. Astronomy records extending back 200 years indicate no such artifacts until about the 1950s (remember the book Alternative III?). Many of the UFO encounters by the astronauts were stated to be of a positive nature in which unintrusive assistance was given. It has been found that asteroids and meteors not only create shallow craters on the Moon's surface but produce a convex floor to the crater instead of concave as expected, supporting the idea of a rigid shell. Countless other pieces of evidence from astronomers and NASA scientists began to reveal that some 2-3 miles down there appear to be dense layers of metal---which would explain why the craters were convex. But the most astonishing conclusion is that the only theory which can completely explain all the anomalies is that the Moon is hollow with a shell about 20 miles thick---mostly metal. Note that mascons (higher concentrations of mass) found in the marias cause fluctuations in gravity and have never been satisfactorily explained. Moreover, these structural anomalies were supported by two publications, one Time Magazine, which unwittingly revealed the gravity value of the Moon relative to Earth by publishing the distance from Earth to Moon of the null point between them, indicating a gravitational force some 60 -70 % of Earth. Furthermore, some people noticed the feeble plumage of the rocket exhaust as the module rose from the Moon's surface---explained away by NASA as due to the vacuum. But what about some of the telltale and suspicious features observed during the first Armstrong and Aldrin Moon landing. The American flag was seen briefly to wave in ... a breeze? But we are told there is no air on the Moon. The flag was then starched. Also we saw dust kicked up by the astronauts clearly drifting in . . . what? Dust particles do not drift in vacuum---they cling together. And what about the feeble leaps of the astronauts off the Moon's surface---were their spacesuits and backpacks really so heavy? The Moon is supposed to be about one-sixth the gravity of Earth. Thus we now know that air is present, and the feeble rocket exhaust could not be due to a vacuum. Moreover, the exhaust was apparently too weak to account for the necessary power to escape from such a gravitational pull in relationship to the size of the module, which was not large enough to contain the necessary fuel to escape the Moon's high gravity. Was antigravity propulsion secretly being used as a booster? The covert government have long since sent 'astronauts' into outer space in antigravity spacecrafts. They apparently had the so-called cosmospheres about 40 years ago, some larger than the old and massive dirigibles. They seized the antigravity research data from the Nazis, and have since then reverse-engineered captured spacecrafts and negotiated deals with aliens involving antigravity technologies. The more thorough have been the investigations of the Moon the more bizarre the results have been. Probably one of the most startling was that moonquakes occurred like clockwork. Moreover, the fluctuations on each occasion were the same. This is impossible for natural conditions which always obey fractal distributions. Furthermore, a study of rock samples reveal an age of 5.3 billion years, and that not only is the Moon older than the Earth, estimated to be about 4.6 billion years, but that it is older than the solar system (and by theoretical standards as old as the universe). What about the surface of the Moon? Several television viewers wrote explaining that they spotted one of the astronauts pick up what appeared to be a glass bottle and remark, 'My God, I don't believe it, look at this . .. ' Then the television screen went blank. Other viewers observed the extreme difficulty astronauts had when drilling down a few inches into the Moon's marias and that when the drill bit was pulled out, metal shavings were visible. Rocks were found to contain brass, mica, titanium, and elements uranium 236 and Neptunium 237 not previously found in nature. More- <a href="http://www.zephnet.com/?select=squib&league=composite&post_id=60145&docket=1&linkoff=3">www.zephnet.com/?select=s...&linkoff=3</a>

by **Pirx** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:43 pm

To paraphrase Zappa- Is that a real ph.d...or a Sears ph.d? A really good argument for defining that acronym as "piled high and deep" though. Can anyone back up ANY of these bits of "data" with facts? No? Didn't think so. You can repeat them as many times as you like. Still won't make them true.

by **glubglubglub** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:47 am

than some of you are inclined to give it. Let me try to explain it: The problem with faking the stars to insert into the apollo photographs is that the psyops folks at NASA -- as brilliant as they would have to be -- would have a finite amount of time to get it right (no more than a few years) and then the rest of the world -- including our noble, crusading bands of fact-checking amateur astronomers -- would have the rest of time to double-check the psyops folks' creations; ergo, any inevitable mistakes, if serious enough, would eventually be discovered -- whether such mistakes would be damning (my god, jim -- the stars say they're on the back side of the moon!) or simply curious (most interesting, it appears that they're ten metres further away from that crater than they said they were) would depend on the accuracy of the created image and a good deal of luck. So the challenge in faking moon photos with starry skies is one of time asymmetry -- only a few years to produce the image, and all of eternity to spot its mistakes -- and this asymmetry does explain away the apparent contradiction between 'brilliant/dumb amateur astronmers' and the purported NASA psyops team. Could such starry pictures be faked? Perhaps -- computer power wasn't really up to snuff in those days, although there's enough workarounds even then that it wouldn't be out of the question, and with a few years it'd be possible to make suitable images using other means -- provided that the exact location and direction of the camera purportedly taking the shots isn't ever expected to have its position known exactly....which if you're a conspiracist suggests an explanation for the preponderance of candid shots. Needless to say if the moonlandings had been done in 89 or even 79 the stars could've been perfectly faked with the computing power known to be available to the government at that point, but in 69 it producing the images on time would have been a truly formidable task, esp. with an eternity of people to fool. I don't really have a dog in this hunt, really, but didn't want to see an interesting idea shot down -- the difficulty of faking moon images with starry skies is higher than it first appears. I do wish they'd at least taken a few shots of the starscape as seen from the moon, but we have hubble (for now). If I were a science fiction writer the scenario I'd paint would be this: launch an unmanned, automated apollo craft, wait a day, then fire up the captured UFO and drop the astronauts off on the moon in time to do the filming, etc., then ride home in the lunar lander; this isn't what I think happened but is entertaining. More ramblings: serious chemical-propulsion based space travel requires either a global coordination of resource use far beyond what the species has yet demosntrated itself capable of or being out in a nebula where a ramjet will work; in other words, there's not much future in it, and smart people have known this for a while...to get to sci-fi level space travel requires reactionless propulsion (and better energy sources -- fusion at a minimum, imho). My guess is that the black project world has gone on and developed/tried to develop the reactantless propulsion, while the white budget world has until recently been tasked with developing conventional propulsion; that the space programs have been curtailed probably stems from a combination of our crap economic situation and, perhaps, successes in the black project world to make the parallel research effort harder to justify. JD: I'm pretty sure the solution was the following: use the byproducts of combustion to get water to use internally and then use as a heat sink before subsequently ejecting the steam thus produced; the supply of fuel would allow this process to work for such a short spaceflight. Have you done a back of the envelope calculation on this one, though -- I'm not convinced it's as big a factor as you're making it out to be (ie, the excess heat could've been jettisoned by a fairly insubstantial amount of water).

by **greencrow0** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:59 am

I have believe this for about 15 years now. I was in my 20's when the lunar landings were taking place and believed them implicitly then. I never doubted them for one minute. Then I became very busy with raising children and career etc and didn't think about them for a couple of decades. When I thought about them again, I looked at how technology is today compared with what we had back in the 60's and 70's...black and white TV...no cell phones or computers...it occured to me that the technology back then was not sufficient for such a project...even the communication [not to mention all the TV shots and interviews with the astronauts'] would have been difficult if not impossible to achieve under the circumstances. I factored into that all the lies that the United States government has been dishing out over the past 75 years or so...blatant baldfaced lies concerning the assassination of their president, the Gulf of Tonkin etc., etc... I realized that this nation is founded on lies [open and free land in NA...uninhabited by natives]. I looked at the pictures of the lunar lander and, what was so 'high tech' back in the 60's and 70's looked silly and rinky dink in retrospect. Finally, I used my common sense, I said to myself...if the US really went to the moon....they would have a national holiday and all the astronauts would be celebrities and there would be documentaries about it on the TV all the time...as it is, it is kept very low key...and getting lower all the time...why the 35th anniversary of the first lunar landing took place last year with barely a comment in the MSM. Last year, I want to a museum of history were a special display dedicated to the lunar landing was set up. A little sign in the display window said that the spacesuits worn by the manikins were actual spacesuits that had been worn during the Apollo missions....as I stood staring at them, I was aware that a young man in his 20's was standing beside me staring at them too. I smiled at him and asked this stranger...Do you really believe they went to the moon wearing those suits? He looked at me and smiled and said 'No". I said..."Neither do I"....and we shared one of those priceless moments when you connect with a perfect stranger with a secret that you both discovered at the same moment...I asked him where he came from...as this museum of history is in Canada. He told me he came from the United States.

by **scollon** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 9:17 am

Thanks <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Needless to say if the moonlandings had been done in 89 or even 79 the stars could've been perfectly faked with the computing power known to be available to the government at that point, but in 69 it producing the images on time would have been a truly formidable task, esp. with an eternity of people to fool.<hr></blockquote> Exactly, they couldn't have faked a star map of somewhere on earth never mind the moon. There is also the seriously sticky question of putting the earth in the sky if that was the picture you wanted. I think peoplewould have liked to see that in the context of the stars. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/15/06 6:34 am

by **scollon** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 9:25 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I factored into that all the lies that the United States government has been dishing out over the past 75 years or so<hr></blockquote> That's very true, I think it was Dave McGowan who called the United States the 'land of the eternal lie' The space suits and the LM and the whole thing just seem more like science fiction than reality in the days of pocket calculator powered computers. It was also before serious materials science research. Computers have massively boosted all areas of technology since then. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/15/06 7:09 am

by **orz** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:47 pm

<a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/7707/medlunarsuit6kl.jpg"/></a>

by **daleftrsoright** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:41 pm

i never thought about the moon landing until i found out about 911... i would have never questioned it if it wasnt for 911... i just assume it was faked now, just like okc and the first wtc bombing... still neither are as big a lie as god....

by **orz** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>i just assume<hr></blockquote><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tired.gif ALT="|I">

by JD » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:47 am

[q]JD: I'm pretty sure the solution was the following: use the byproducts of combustion to get water to use internally and then use as a heat sink before subsequently ejecting the steam thus produced; the supply of fuel would allow this process to work for such a short spaceflight. Have you done a back of the envelope calculation on this one, though -- I'm not convinced it's as big a factor as you're making it out to be (ie, the excess heat could've been jettisoned by a fairly insubstantial amount of water).[q/] I did a little reading on this and what they say is that water generated from on board fuel cells was used as a coolant. They say the change in enthalpy from sublimation of the water to the vacuum of space was suffient to cool the LM. They also say the same technology was employed in the space suits. Hmmmm. Space suit gloves. Think about this. How'd they keep the lad's hands cool? Any of you weld? Try handling really hot metal for say a minute or two. The heat goes straight through the heaviest gloves. I can't imagine any water cooling arrangement operating above the atmospheric boiling point of water that would be practically be placed into gloves, can you? I haven't done any calculations on this matter. Could crack out the old thermodynamics books but really this would take me probably a day or two to really come up with a decent answer. I remember one of my old profs said in a memorable lecture "any good engineer can come up with the right, albeit imprecise answer to a question in a minute". OK. I'm not sure if I'm good or not but here goes. Nothing new in what I'm saying below to what I said before, but maybe saying it differently will make the thought process more clear. Imagine a shipping container in a desert. You know, like the ones they killed hundreds of Afghan prisoners in. Now let it sit out in the desert for three days - except this desert has no night time, and the surface temperature is 107 degrees celcius (yes above water's boiling point). Let's be generous and build a inch of decent insulation around the exterior. And make the surface shiny. That'd reduce conduction to the interior, and also reduce the radiant heat transmission to the container. Do you really think circulating a bit of water (and I mean a bit - diagrams of the LM do not point to lots and lots of tubing running along the exterior walls - tubing that would have to be sturdy enough to keep pressure on water greater than 100 degrees celcius from turning to vapour......) to an evaporator would keep the shipping container cool? Without doing a calculation on the matter I think the volume of water needed to be evaporated would be large, larger than what was carried in the LM AND larger than would be generated by fuel cells. I think certainly a volume that would be visible in the footage of the time. Someone on this post said that it would be a tiny amount and invisible........ I call bovine shutters on that. It'd be a highly visible plume spewing out. Plus, I think the arrangement as proposed is dumb in an engineering sense as the weight required for a high pressure (ie above boiling pressure) heat exchange system would be excessive. No flying steam engines, right? Something about thick walled heavy pipe and flying being incompatible. Secondly, it is dumb to waste a heavy heat exchange medium such as water in this way. So going WAY back to my first post - some type of parasol, coupled with a powered refridgeration system (freon based?) would have been workable. Pretty much the way terrestrial air conditioning systems work. They pump out lots of cold Q! But it wasn't done. Hmmmm. If someone can spend the time to do the estimates of the Q that would be required to cool the LM, and estimate the amount of water needed to sublimate to match the Q input from radiant sources, I might believe that it worked. But my five minute thinking exercise thinks it is unworkable.

by **glubglubglub** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:00 am

I was just piping out the conventional wisdom on the topic. As a semi-joking reply: how much time did they actually spend exposed to the sunlight? I'd imagine they could travel a good portion of the way mostly in the earth's shadow -- they'd only have an absolute need to be in the exposed areas during the landing and exploration, which would help a bit.

by JD » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:51 am

Oops I goofed up the quote commands. I forgot one detail about the water based cooling system. If water was used as the heat transfer medium, it strikes me that this is a risky choice for reasons of freezing. Frozen pipes mean cracked pipes. Imagine the risk if part of the cooling system froze at any time. No more cooling system. Reliability has to be about the most important design criteria in a lunar mission. Anyone want to take a chance on freezing part of your cooling system? A gas based system, probably using Freon would be a far less risky approach. Was such a system used? Not from anything I've been able to find. Perhaps Pirx can help with this - he referenced a book about the LM. Pirx what was the duty of the HVAC system in the LM? Was a refrigerant used or simply water as you've said? I can understand that the GlubGlub - laughed at your "piping up" pun. Let's keep this fun!!! In answer to your question I have no problem with the ability to keep an orbiting spacecraft at habitable conditions. While in orbit, it spends half its time in very hot temperatures when exposed to the sun, and half at very cold temperatures when it is on the dark side of the planet it is orbiting. This would make for a bit of a self-regulating temperature cycle. For the same reason, if a spacecraft not in orbit turns slowly as it hurtles through space it has a chance to disipate heat as the side of the spacecraft that is in the shade radiates heat built up from the sunny side. A static LM sitting for 3 days on the moon has no such luxuries! You'd have to engineer your climate control. Here's some stuff I found about cooling space suits: "WATER TRANSPORT LOOP This loop cools the astronaut by removing his metabolic heat and any heat that leaks into the suit from the hot lunar surface. A battery-operated pump continuously circulates 1.35 pounds of chilled water at a rate of 4 pounds per minute through a network of plastic tubing integrated in the liquid cooling garment worn under the space suit. The pack dissipates metabolic heat at an average of 1,600 Btu per hour and can handle peak rates up to 2,000 Btu. The sublimator that cools the oxygen flow extracts heat from the circulating water, which normally leaves the pack at 45 degrees F. To control cooling, the astronaut uses a valve on the pack to select any one of three water temperature ranges (45 to 50 degrees, 60 to 65 degrees, or 75 to 80 degrees). This valve diverts water past the sublimator. FEEDWATER LOOP This subsystem supplies 11.8 pounds of expendable water, stored in a rubber bladder reservoir, to the heat-rejecting porous-plate sublimator. Of this expendable feedwater, 8.5 pounds is stored in the main reservoir an auxiliary tank holds the remaining 3.3 pounds. Suit pressure against the bladder forces water into passages between the sublimator's heat transport fluid passages and its metal plates, which are exposed to space vacuum. The ice layer formed on the porous plates during sublimation prevents the slightly pressurized water from flowing through the metal pores. Condensed water from the oxygen-ventilating circuit is collected outside the reservoir bladder. Feedwater is replenished from the LM supply. Refilling the bladder forces water condensed from the oxygen flow into the LM waste management system." <a href="http://www.apollosaturn.com/Lmnr/p.htm">www.apollosaturn.com/Lmnr/p.htm</a> Of note - PLASTIC TUBING - interesting - I guess the design in space suits is to keep the heat exchange system running well below boiling. Note I have no problems with the the sublimator. It'd work but I'd think for the case of the LM the volume of water sublimated would be large. The article states cooling is for metabolic heat. Interesting, no mention of cooling requirements due to being in the equivilent of an oven. Nevertheless, the space suit has a reservoir of 11.8 pounds of water for cooling. Let's assume this is sufficient for a ?4? hours of cooling. Let's also assume the LM has a surface area from which to absorb radiation 100x as big as an astronaut in a space suit. This would mean under the assumptions made that 1180 pounds of water would be required to cool the LM for the assumed timeframe. If the 4 hours is correct, that'd mean around 10,000 pounds of water would be required. Holy smokes. Even if I'm wildly wrong on the assumptions above you get the picture as to the water requirements of a sublimating cooling system.

by JD » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:59 am

Oops - with the assumptions in the last post 1180 lbs in 4 hours would mean over 20,000 lbs of water required over a 3 day mission. Yikes - you guys must be gushing over in confidence at my cyphering skills!! NOT! (Is the "Goof" referring to the error or the writer he he) Seriously though it's kinda fun to think things through from the basics, and what fundamentally makes sense, whether it be politics or technology.

by **Francis Parker Yockey** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:03 pm

"Approximately 360,000 scientists, engineers, civil servants and contractors worked on the Apollo program. They designed the rockets, sewed the space suits, cut the pay checks, guarded the doors, swept the floors and much more. These hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life can testify that the Apollo program was real." Case closed! The guy who sweeps up says we went to the moon, it gots to be true! That was an impressive debunking I will say, almost as if it were your job to convince people. Here's my take; I don't believe ANYTHING that comes from "government officials" if the cost runs over three hundred dollars. The burden of proof isn't on those who claim it didn't happen, but on those who said it DID, and frankly the "Wow we just can't see the surface of the moon 'cause that kind of technology isn't available to us today" seems to run counter to the "we put a man on the moon a third of a century ago" claims, don't you think? If I can google up a birds eye view of my garden, I think NASA can come up with a nice tight shot of the equipment we left on the surface of our closest neighbor in the course of doing something never before acheived by human beings. Hey, believe what you like, I have a relative that's a senior Government official in a major investigative branch who thinks that 19 arab maniacs took out the WTC complext with jet fuel, so it's not as if anyone is expecting rational objectivity in this day and age no matter how qualified and well trained someone may be. One piece of "intuitive" evidence that we didn't go is the panel interview with Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins immediately afterwards. The fellas at Nuremburg looked more confident and relaxed than they did. It was truly painful to watch them looking down, covering their mouths, frowning and rubbing their brows. They looked like they were on trial for their lives. If that's how it affects you to reach the pinnacle of human exploration, maybe it's best we don't "go again".

The "Faked NASA moon landings" thread

lm

Into the mix of theories

Re: Into the mix of theories

scollon's argument about the stars is much more credible

I believe Lunar Landings were faked

Re: scollon's argument about the stars is much more credible

Re: I believe Lunar Landings were faked

Re: I believe Lunar Landings were faked

Re: I believe Lunar Landings were faked

Re: I believe Lunar Landings were faked

Cooling Again

bow to your engineering expertise

Cooling Again Extras

Cooling Goof

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Who is online