Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[stickdog99]

The Van Allen belt is a non-issue. I really don't get why people get so hung up on it, as if it's an immediate death sentence to enter it. Going through at thousands of miles an hour is like getting an x-ray. Staying there for extended periods of time is probably not good for you, but the astronauts didn't.

So what year do you predict the first human will successfully pass through these belts since the Apollo missions?

[DrEvil]

On the off chance you're being serious, hopefully by the end of this decade. Depends how many rockets blow up along the way. More specific than that is pointless. It's literal rocket science - things sometimes go pear shaped.

[Belligerent Savant]

"hopefully by the end of this decade".

So you're acknowledging, minimally, that NASA will not meet its stated goals to get to the moon anytime around ~2025.

NASA's initial stated goal was to land humans on the Moon by 2024. The agency confirmed in November 2021 however that this date would be pushed back to no sooner than 2025.

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/na ... han%202025.

Just need faith that it'll transpire one day...


[Note: I haven't looked at any replies to my last comment on the prior page of this thread, to avoid continued futile/wasteful to and fro with DrEvil; new page, new queries to be answered]

[DrEvil]

Didn't realize new page meant you could ignore all the questions from the previous one. How convenient!

But sure, let's go with that. New query: why does the dust in the Moon videos behave like there's no atmosphere?

[stickdog99]

On the off chance you're being serious, hopefully by the end of this decade. Depends how many rockets blow up along the way. More specific than that is pointless. It's literal rocket science - things sometimes go pear shaped.

And what will be your reaction when 2025, 2030, and 2035 all pass with still no successful human transit past near Earth orbit?

I just find it curious that you feel that this is such a closed question. I mean, NASA has stated EXPLICITLY and RECENTLY that they have yet to solve this problem and that they still must find a way to do so before they can send any humans past near Earth orbit.

Doesn't that strike you as at least a little bit weird considering your total complete 100% certainty that this journey is no more dangerous than getting a chest X-ray?

[stickdog99]

Didn't realize new page meant you could ignore all the questions from the previous one. How convenient!

But sure, let's go with that. New query: why does the dust in the Moon videos behave like there's no atmosphere?

Based on whose opinion?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.11 ... 4620060076

Lunar Dust: Properties and Potential Hazards - December 2020

...

The photoelectrons generated above the surface create, together with the charged regolith surface, a near-surface double layer. The electric field generated in this layer, as well as the particle charge fluctuations on the surface, create conditions under which electric forces may exceed the gravitational force and the van der Waals force of adhesion. As a result, micron- and submicron-sized regolith particles become capable of detaching from the surface and levitating above it.

These dynamic processes cause the transport of dust particles above the lunar surface and the scattering of sunlight on these particles. Glows of this kind were observed over the lunar surface by television systems of American and Soviet landing vehicles in the early stages of lunar exploration.

{So I guess you don't need manned mission to get surface video footage of the Moon. Right?}

American astronauts who landed on the lunar surface during the Apollo program also discovered manifestations of lunar dust. It turns out that dust particles levitating over the regolith surface due to natural processes and those took off the surface due to anthropogenic factors cause many technological problems that compromise the performance of landing vehicles and their systems, hamper astronaut activity on the lunar surface, and are detrimental to their health.

Based on the results of these missions, it is concluded that micron- and submicron-sized dust particles, levitating above the surface, pose a major, barely surmountable obstacle in further research and exploration of the Moon. Since then {LOL since when?}, studies of physical processes associated with the behavior of lunar dust, manifestations of its aggressive properties (toxicity), and ways to reduce the harmful effects of dust on engineering systems and on humans have become topical in theoretical and experimental research.

In this review, the results of the past half century of studies on the behavior of dust particles serve as a basis to discuss the formation of the lunar regolith and the Moon’s near-surface plasma–dust exosphere under the influence of outer space factors. The causes and conditions underling the behavior of dust particles are examined as well as implications of these processes, the influence of anthropogenic factors, and possible hazards to spacecraft and engineering systems during the implementation of the currently planned programs of lunar research and exploration. The main unsolved problems are listed in studying the behavior of the dust component of the lunar regolith; ways to address the problematic issues are discussed.

Yet another major problem that stills remains to be studied and solved that the Apollo astronauts somehow managed to brush off completely.

[DrEvil]

On the off chance you're being serious, hopefully by the end of this decade. Depends how many rockets blow up along the way. More specific than that is pointless. It's literal rocket science - things sometimes go pear shaped.

And what will be your reaction when 2025, 2030, and 2035 all pass with still no successful human transit past near Earth orbit?

I just find it curious that you feel that this is such a closed question. I mean, NASA has stated EXPLICITLY and RECENTLY that they have yet to solve this problem and that they still must find a way to do so before they can send any humans past near Earth orbit.

Doesn't that strike you as at least a little bit weird considering your total complete 100% certainty that this journey is no more dangerous than getting a chest X-ray?

They solved it for the Saturn, now they have to solve it for the SLS. Do you seriously believe they would just up and tell us if they were hiding something?

I have faith they'll get there eventually, just like you and BelSav have faith that they won't. Still don't quite understand why you both are so fervently hostile to space travel.

[DrEvil]

Didn't realize new page meant you could ignore all the questions from the previous one. How convenient!

But sure, let's go with that. New query: why does the dust in the Moon videos behave like there's no atmosphere?

Based on whose opnion?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.11 ... 4620060076

Lunar Dust: Properties and Potential Hazards - December 2020

...

The photoelectrons generated above the surface create, together with the charged regolith surface, a near-surface double layer. The electric field generated in this layer, as well as the particle charge fluctuations on the surface, create conditions under which electric forces may exceed the gravitational force and the van der Waals force of adhesion. As a result, micron- and submicron-sized regolith particles become capable of detaching from the surface and levitating above it.

These dynamic processes cause the transport of dust particles above the lunar surface and the scattering of sunlight on these particles. Glows of this kind were observed over the lunar surface by television systems of American and Soviet landing vehicles in the early stages of lunar exploration.

{So I guess you don't need manned mission to get surface video footage of the Moon. Right?}

American astronauts who landed on the lunar surface during the Apollo program also discovered manifestations of lunar dust. It turns out that dust particles levitating over the regolith surface due to natural processes and those took off the surface due to anthropogenic factors cause many technological problems that compromise the performance of landing vehicles and their systems, hamper astronaut activity on the lunar surface, and are detrimental to their health.

Based on the results of these missions, it is concluded that micron- and submicron-sized dust particles, levitating above the surface, pose a major, barely surmountable obstacle in further research and exploration of the Moon. Since then {LOL since when?}, studies of physical processes associated with the behavior of lunar dust, manifestations of its aggressive properties (toxicity), and ways to reduce the harmful effects of dust on engineering systems and on humans have become topical in theoretical and experimental research.

In this review, the results of the past half century of studies on the behavior of dust particles serve as a basis to discuss the formation of the lunar regolith and the Moon’s near-surface plasma–dust exosphere under the influence of outer space factors. The causes and conditions underling the behavior of dust particles are examined as well as implications of these processes, the influence of anthropogenic factors, and possible hazards to spacecraft and engineering systems during the implementation of the currently planned programs of lunar research and exploration. The main unsolved problems are listed in studying the behavior of the dust component of the lunar regolith; ways to address the problematic issues are discussed.

Yet another major problem that stills remains to be studied and solved that the Apollo astronauts somehow managed to brush off completely.

Now go look at footage of a buggy driving around on the Moon and explain to me why it leaves no dust clouds in its wake.

Edit: I'll even save you the trouble of finding it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az9nFrnCK60

Look at how the dust is thrown up and then immediately falls back down. None of it lingers in the non-existent air, and there's no turbulence. I would really like to hear a good explanation for how they faked this.

[stickdog99]

That dust is supposed to be like tiny shards of glass and a serious health hazard. But the astronaut is churning it up like a ATV on steroids.

From what I just read, much of the dust that that Lunar Rover kicked up should have left the Moon's gravity well completely. And much more should have remained electrostatically suspended in the Moon's light atmosphere instead of immediately falling to the surface.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand exactly how this video is supposed to prove that we went to the Moon many times over 50 years ago then somehow forgot how to get back ever since.

Frankly, I'm not invested in this either way. I just don't get why you think this video proves anything.

[stickdog99]

On the off chance you're being serious, hopefully by the end of this decade. Depends how many rockets blow up along the way. More specific than that is pointless. It's literal rocket science - things sometimes go pear shaped.

And what will be your reaction when 2025, 2030, and 2035 all pass with still no successful human transit past near Earth orbit?

I just find it curious that you feel that this is such a closed question. I mean, NASA has stated EXPLICITLY and RECENTLY that they have yet to solve this problem and that they still must find a way to do so before they can send any humans past near Earth orbit.

Doesn't that strike you as at least a little bit weird considering your total complete 100% certainty that this journey is no more dangerous than getting a chest X-ray?

They solved it for the Saturn, now they have to solve it for the SLS. Do you seriously believe they would just up and tell us if they were hiding something?.

Of course they would. That's like saying, "Do you seriously believe they would just up and tell us they tested this bivalent booster on just 8 mice if they were hiding something?"

[guruilla]

I see an ideological gulf, of sorts, which is no surprise, since it’s been practically a de rigueur feature of RI discussion since 2016. Or more accurately, maybe, a bulwark of ideology against awkward facts and annoying anomalies.

Dr. Evil always lives up to his name; splitting hairs about a comment in a 3.5 doc that is literally overflowing with (I would say) impossible-to-refute evidence of fakery in the Moon landing footage, and then presenting it as proof of the blanket dishonesty of the filmmakers. I wonder why the staunch defenders of the Moon hoax don’t at least admit that some of the footage might have been faked, because it would give them way more leeway to argue that some of it is also real, and that yes, we really did conquer space, way back then, even if it led to nothing more than Teflon and a great big cognitive gulf war. Presumably it is because the idea of such fakery is itself unacceptable to them, either because a) they don’t like to think they could be fooled; or b) they refuse to believe the US government is capable of such rank deception. Either way, they seem to have wandered into the wrong party.

I repeat, that some of the Moon landing footage is fake is now, IMO, irrefutable. What remains is to discern why, how, and what exactly it proves besides that you can fool most of the people for a very long time, maybe indefinitely, because of precisely what my signature line says, i.e., the psychology of previous investment.

Back to the ideology, the belief a) that space travel is a good idea is an ideological position that goes hand in hand with a whole latticework of indoctrinated beliefs, i.e., state-sanctioned delusions, about human progress, manifest destiny, the will to power, etc. This belief/goal, I pretty much proved to my own satisfaction at least (with POI), is the result of a collective attachment disorder to Mama. In other words, just really fucked up, demonstrably the thin, hard edge of the transhumanist drive to escape physical reality and replace God/the soul with a crappy, tin-foiled covered and duct-tape reinforced Moon shuttle that even a child can spot as a fake. (Cf. emperor’s new clothes.)

b) The belief in NASA as a force of human progress/good is inseparable from a larger belief in (US) government and military institutions. It is, provably, wrong and beyond wrong, disingenuous, deluded, and just plain evil truth-doctoring, if pushed to its logical extreme, i.e., the avocation of a deadly mRNA “vaccine” now implementing a euthano-genocidal program of “species cleansing.”

On NASA’s involvement in child trafficking and ritual abuse, there is very little written about this, but the evidence is there, starting with the usual map of connections, timelines, and literal dead bodies. For the curious, you can try listening to my conversations with Gary Heidt, who grew up near a NASA base and believes that at least some of the sexual abuse he suffered as a child happened there.
https://auticulture.com/the-liminalist-37/
https://auticulture.com/liminalist-93/

I wonder if anyone here takes a point of view even vaguely supportive of Dr. Evil’s, if so, why they don’t speak up, and if not, why Dr. Evil spends so much time in a space where his point of view seems only able to continue via a frenzied and constant assertion of half-facts and hard opinions, all wrapped up inside a massive ideological brainwash that, I had always thought, RI is meant to be a haven from, or at least a continuous and robust challenge to.

If Evil is really serious that the 3.5 video that has impressed some of the best minds at RI as being the final nail in a rotten coffin of the Moon landing hoax, why doesn't he take the time to watch it all, and come up with a point-by-point rebuttal of the dozens of compelling arguments the film makes? As it is, he hasn’t even come up with a good, or even an honest, answer to the simple one raised, about the VA belt, and instead seems satisfied to keep insisting that he has addressed it. Since apparently his own “faith” in US space supremacy remains unfazed, only a moron can’t see how penetrating his arguments really are.

That’s all for now; over to the well-named Belligerent Savage (thank God for the other kind of BS!).

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Beautifully summarized, guruilla. You've elegantly captured the fundamental underpinnings behind much of what I've ruminated on, and attempted to express here in written form, with varying degrees of clarity.

I agree with the sentiment that any next steps here would be to present counters to the claims made in the fore-mentioned 3.5hr documentary.

I've said this numerous times in all the moon/mars-related threads here, but to reiterate: none of us can say anything definitively on this topic: we simply can't know -- and likely will never know -- what truly transpires/has transpired up there beyond our atmosphere. But what is increasingly clear is that the "official" moon landing narratives simply can not hold up to any valid scrutiny, and any close/sober examination reveals the missions as space farce. This, in turn, raises many other questions Re: actual events in space, and also, the extent which humans have been blatantly (and egregiously) hoodwinked, and continue to be hoodwinked (as touched on by guruilla above). These actions have markedly escalated over the past ~2yrs, and we can anticipate this pace to continue in the coming year+.

This one point here:

They solved it for the Saturn, now they have to solve it for the SLS.

Reportedly (solved for Saturn). But where is the corroborating evidence for this? Telemetry data (un-altered, that is) would have gone a long way towards answering a number of these questions, but as previously mentioned, this critical data was part of what was somehow "lost" by NASA. So what is the corroborating evidence that Saturn "solved" the VA Belt challenge, particularly since it's now being touted by NASA as a significant hurdle?

I believe part of the value of this [anachronistic] forum -- historically at least; but this has been waning, as touched on in the prior post above mine -- is to continually challenge default narratives.

[DrEvil]

Telemetry data could also be faked, so even if it was all there available for download you wouldn't believe it. It was beamed down from a satellite, or they had someone helping them at the radio telescopes receiving the telemetry, etc.

But, you will be happy to learn that I actually decided to watch the damn thing. I'm about fifty minutes in so far, and while it's not as bad as I feared, even interesting in places, my main concern is not what they're saying, but what they're not saying. A couple of examples:

- James E. Webb's retirement. According to the documentary it's inexplicable. Just off the top of my head I can think of at least two perfectly good reasons why he would retire. One, he was the guy in charge when three astronauts died horribly. Two, there was a new administration incoming and he resigned to make room for his replacement, which is pretty standard. None of this is even mentioned as a possibility, it's just inexplicable, period.

- When they're looking at the possibility of the backgrounds being projections, and make a big deal out of all the footage they're looking at having a clear line going across the image where the set would end and the background projection take over, notice how they don't say all the footage has this horizontal dividing line, but some or much of it (can't remember the exact wording). If it's all fake with fake backdrops, shouldn't all the footage have that? They couldn't just fake some of it.

- When they compare the landing footage to the simulator, they don't show the rest of the landing, where they keep getting closer and closer to the surface, showing ever more detail that's not in the simulator.

So far the argument seems to be: they could have faked it, so they faked it. I'll try to watch the rest as time allows, and maybe the argument gets some more substance, but for now it's not very convincing.

It's as you say, we can't know absolutely for sure either way, so we both have faith that our interpretation of events is the correct one.

[guruilla]

I recall thinking by about 1.5 hr mark I had seen enough not to need any more convincing, but none of what Dr Evil mentions was among the evidence I found compelling.

In some ways I admit to being at a disadvantage because I now simply presume deception, corruption, and malevolence on the part of US government, etc. My POV is that the devil not only lies a lot, but cannot not lie, that even when he tells the truth, he's lying. Ergo, everything that comes out of NASA, e.g., is ipso facto not what it seems.

And while I can still be surprised, and even shocked, as regards the latest revelations of government & corporate malfeasance, it is rarely if ever by the depths of depravity of the major institutions, but by the tenacity of credulity of people who continue to believe what they are told by the Father of Lies.

I often wonder why this is so, and for example, why, tho I did once believe in the Moon landing, it never meant enough to me to translate into any kind of respect for, or faith in, NASA, the space program, or the US govt. I couldn't even tell you the moment I realized I could no longer believe it was real, because the period in which I believed in anything the government, or "science," told me was true is so vanishingly, roughly the window between childhood, when it didn't matter anyway, and early adulthood, when the dis-illusionment process began, and from which there has been no looking back.

So now it's hard for me to engage in the minutiae of these argument because I look at that Moon shuttle and I just laugh. I can't imagine how anyone could think it was real. Which isn't to say I know it isn't, just that I know it looks fake.

It reminds me of the Charlie Hebdoe footage, so blatantly obviously fake that it literally required an act of faith to believe in the MSM narrative telling us it was real. I suspect that this is exactly what the End Game is all about, Uncle Satan getting souls to bow down to him because they are afraid to stick their necks out, not realizing the only alternative is placing their necks on the chopping block.

Seems fitting imagery somehow, because belief in the Moon landing (not just belief it's real, but that it's a meaningful form of progress) is archetypally an almost literal form of false idol worship ~ in the Big Mother, no less!

[DrEvil]

Judging something by how it looks fake can bite you in the ass. Reality often looks more fake than the fakes, because the actual fakes are intentional.

Edit: @BelSav: saw your commentary in the Brave New World thread ( viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42356&start=15#p705473 ). Can you please piss off with your constant insinuations that people who disagree with you are brainwashed good little soldiers in thrall to the elites, and just once in your life try to argue in good faith? Or maybe I should just start constantly insinuating you've (never you specifically, it's always good to have an out, but obviously so from context) been taken in by con men, idiots and lying hacks who prey on weak minded fools, and that you're so deep in paranoia you couldn't find the truth if it came up and french-kissed you. I'm sure I could dig up a ton of papers on the pathology of conspiratorial thinking.

It works both ways and it's no fun, so why not just knock it off and defend your case honestly?