Mot every conspiracy theorist lies of course.
actually, this whole site is about believing we went to the moon.
But what about the fact that nasa have lost the moontapes?????
Mot every conspiracy theorist lies of course.
actually, this whole site is about believing we went to the moon.
Everyone here seems to want to defend that
But what about the fact that nasa have lost the moontapes?????
You couldn't make this up! what utter non sense it all is!
Mot every conspiracy theorist lies of course.
But what about the fact that nasa have lost the moontapes?????
But what about the fact that nasa have lost the moontapes?????
What do you think was actually "lost?" Specifically what were the "moontapes" you refer to? What do you think were the circumstances of the loss?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013002065.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013002065.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013002065.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013002065.html)
Copies existed elsewhere, which is why enhanced videos were released (IIRC) in 2009.
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts (Just for you Gary Gorrell)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE)
btw don't want the psycho's swear on the bible that they went to the moon?!
Tels us somehing, doesn't it?
Michio Kaku on the moon landing "hoax".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk)
And I would not call them names if I were a dissenter to the facts, it rather demeans your own argument to the level of a puddle at the bottom of a mine shaft.
btw don't want the psycho's swear on the bible that they went to the moon?!Tells me that they knew the person requesting them to do so they knew was a stalker that was going to claim they were frauds no matter if they swore on it or not. Why should they want to deal with a person like that?
Tels us somehing, doesn't it?
btw don't want the psycho's swear on the bible that they went to the moon?!Tells me that they knew the person requesting them to do so they knew was a stalker that was going to claim they were frauds no matter if they swore on it or not. Why should they want to deal with a person like that?
Tels us somehing, doesn't it?
Not really when you consider they already had copies of everything and had overwritten the tapes because it was getting harder to get new tapes from the manufacturer. IIRC that particular tape used whale oil in the binder which had caused a shortage of new tapes at the time.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013002065.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013002065.html)
Copies existed elsewhere, which is why enhanced videos were released (IIRC) in 2009.
yeah maybe so, but just think about it! losing those tapes!!!!!!
unbelievable!
ah well what would you expect from nazi oeps nasa?Nice of you to show your true colors here.
btw don't want the psycho's swear on the bible that they went to the moon?!Tells me that they knew the person requesting them to do so they knew was a stalker that was going to claim they were frauds no matter if they swore on it or not. Why should they want to deal with a person like that?
Tels us somehing, doesn't it?
I know you would find a way to keep your religion in tact! Very funny to watch btw.
What a stupid joke it all is!
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts (Just for you Gary Gorrell)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE)
A sick joke is just played on all of us!
btw don't want the psycho's swear on the bible that they went to the moon?!Maybe because they've read the part where J.C. says one shall not swear?
Tels us somehing, doesn't it?Tells us several things: Astronauts know their Bible and astronauts can tell obnoxious hoax nuts from real reporters.
Why is it a sick joke? Do you understand what constitutes a sick joke?
well, well, well a theoretical physicist Dr.Michio Kaku alsoReally? He lies at 2:16 saying there are multiple shadows on a single object. This is NOT seen in Apollo. Why does he have to lie to try to make his points?
doesn't believe we have send men to the moon! How right he is!!!QuoteMichio Kaku on the moon landing "hoax".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk)
well, well, well a theoretical physicist Dr.Michio Kaku also
doesn't believe we have send men to the moon! How right he is!!!QuoteMichio Kaku on the moon landing "hoax".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk)
And I would not call them names if I were a dissenter to the facts, it rather demeans your own argument to the level of a puddle at the bottom of a mine shaft.
Wel, they lie all the time, hence they are narcisstic psychopaths.
Something you can't handle?
ah well what would you expect from nazi oeps nasa?
What a stupid joke it all is!They were talking specifically about testing the electronics on the new capsule which IIRC are more sensitive than those used on Apollo. They also specifically sent it through the thicker parts of the belts for testing when Apollo took a path AROUND the thickest parts through the thinner outer edges.QuoteNASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts (Just for you Gary Gorrell)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE)
A sick joke is just played on all of us!
Everything? Really? I've yet to see a hoax claim that stands up to scrutiny.QuoteWhy is it a sick joke? Do you understand what constitutes a sick joke?
No, mate of coure not.
I really really wonder why people still believe we went tp the moon?
Everything is just against it.
No, mate of coure not.
I really really wonder why people still believe we went tp the moon?
Everything is just against it.
ah well what would you expect from nazi oeps nasa?
Wel, they lie all the time, hence they are narcisstic psychopaths.
Something you can't handle?
well, well, well a theoretical physicist Dr.Michio Kaku alsoDid you actually listen to the video??? He says nothing of the sort in the video. Really, is that the best you can do? Posting a video that contradicts your claim. That gets you an F- you really must try harder.
doesn't believe we have send men to the moon! How right he is!!!QuoteMichio Kaku on the moon landing "hoax".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk)
What everything, I mean a big space rocket took off several times, do you dispute that a Saturn V was launched?
It's a good starting point giving that you invoke the 'everything' argument
Interesting. I was asked some time ago to comment on Dr. Kaku's debunking of Moon landing hoax theories -- a strange activity for someone to do whom it is now claimed agrees with that viewpoint. The commentary I presented sadly had to take Dr. Kaku to task for getting a fair amount of the engineering detail wrong. But to claim he's a hoax believer is pretty audaciously stupid.
As I said:
(http://spiritualcleansing.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Its-easier-to-fool-people-than-to-convince-them-that-they-have-been-fooled..jpg)
It is very diffuclt to let some one in a cult think otherwise. It is called...programming.
You've invoked one of the random internet quotes with a picture of some famous guy now. Guys, we need to add this to the bingo card, it's a new one.
Interesting. I was asked some time ago to comment on Dr. Kaku's debunking of Moon landing hoax theories -- a strange activity for someone to do whom it is now claimed agrees with that viewpoint. The commentary I presented sadly had to take Dr. Kaku to task for getting a fair amount of the engineering detail wrong. But to claim he's a hoax believer is pretty audaciously stupid.
So, you haven't seen or listened to the video then eh?
Interesting. I was asked some time ago to comment on Dr. Kaku's debunking of Moon landing hoax theories -- a strange activity for someone to do whom it is now claimed agrees with that viewpoint. The commentary I presented sadly had to take Dr. Kaku to task for getting a fair amount of the engineering detail wrong. But to claim he's a hoax believer is pretty audaciously stupid.
I don't care. I care about what he said being true.
No, I never wrote that! See, now you are editing what I wrote.
People here probably also believe that evolutio is true, black holes exist, relativity theory is right, quantum nechanics is correct, that there was a Biggie Bangie.
You've invoked one of the random internet quotes with a picture of some famous guy now. Guys, we need to add this to the bingo card, it's a new one.
I don't care. I care about what he said being true.
I know you just don't like that.
No I did not edit what you wrote. You claim everything was against us, yet we have evidence that a big space rocket took off.
You might want to care whether he ever said it or not. It would say something about your research skills.
You might want to care whether he ever said it or not. It would say something about your research skills.
sure, now we have an Ad Hominem on our hands. where do they find these people?
You might want to care whether he ever said it or not. It would say something about your research skills.
sure, now we have an Ad Hominem on our hands. where do they find these people?
No, you don't.
Did Mark Twain say what you think he said. Find me the book it's in.
Or did you just copy some crap from the internet without bothering to check it was true or not?
Given your posting history so far I think I know the answer...
sure, now we have an Ad Hominem on our hands. where do they find these people?
ah well what would you expect from nazi oeps nasa?
I have a name for people who really believe we have sent men to the moon: luna-tics
QuoteNo I did not edit what you wrote. You claim everything was against us, yet we have evidence that a big space rocket took off.
you are doing it again! I never claimed that a big space rocket id not took off, I wrote that.
How many times do I have to repeat this?
I have a name for people who really believe we have sent men to the moon: luna-tics
They tend to spring up out of the ooze, start juvenile name-calling and then either implode or get banned...
ah well what would you expect from nazi oeps nasa?
I have a name for people who really believe we have sent men to the moon: luna-tics
You might want to care whether he ever said it or not. It would say something about your research skills.
sure, now we have an Ad Hominem on our hands. where do they find these people?
No, you don't.
Did Mark Twain say what you think he said. Find me the book it's in.
Or did you just copy some crap from the internet without bothering to check it was true or not?
Given your posting history so far I think I know the answer...
So, you really didn't get the point then, mate?!
Figures.
So, you haven't seen or listened to the video then eh?
Aww...he's plumb tuckered himself out. All that pee and vinegar didn't last long, did it?
Maybe he'll be back after his Mum lets him leave the table?
QuoteWhat do you think was actually "lost?" Specifically what were the "moontapes" you refer to? What do you think were the circumstances of the loss?"
It is of course not about what I think!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013002065.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013002065.html)
How convenient for them!
of course it is all a hoax! Everything on this earth is!
Now now, we don't him to think we're just being rude to him and calling him an idiot dullard and such. Far better to concentrate on the quality of his argument.
Ah...erm....
People here probably also believe that evolutio is true, black holes exist, relativity theory is right, quantum nechanics is correct, that there was a Biggie Bangie.
We are certainly here to listen to any case that you might want to make, Helping myself and others to understand what you are saying is the point of my questions so please reply in as much detail as you can.
As I said:
People here probably also believe that evolutio is true, black holes exist, relativity theory is right, quantum nechanics is correct, that there was a Biggie Bangie.
Alas, that appears to be a task left for LO to accomplish as he gets the opportunity.We are certainly here to listen to any case that you might want to make, Helping myself and others to understand what you are saying is the point of my questions so please reply in as much detail as you can.
And since this is a digest thread, it would be more prudent to start individual threads on individual topics.
I am at aw at how easy it is to fool the people.
You remain utterly unable to point to any violation of science. Why is that?QuoteNo I did not edit what you wrote. You claim everything was against us, yet we have evidence that a big space rocket took off.
you are doing it again! I never claimed that a big space rocket id not took off, I wrote that.
How many times do I have to repeat this?
I have a name for people who really believe we have sent men to the moon: luna-tics
lol
what stupid it all is!!!! It is in your face that we didn't sent people.
It really , really is a religion, a cult.
You have heard the words "ad hominem" somewhere. Now demonstrate that you know what it means. Please.
You might want to care whether he ever said it or not. It would say something about your research skills.
sure, now we have an Ad Hominem on our hands. where do they find these people?
Oh, IDW, Where art thou?
A scent of sock pervades throughout.Oh, IDW, Where art thou?
;)
Tindarormkimcha wrote:...I really really wonder why people still believe we went tp the moon?
People here probably also believe that evolutio is true, black holes exist, relativity theory is right, quantum nechanics is correct, that there was a Biggie Bangie.
Now you've really got my interest. We can always talk about the anthropic principle within the framework of quantum mechanics. Would our Universe exist if I was not in it to observe its nature? Friends and I were debating the philosophy of the anthropic principle over dinner the other night and whether it is a statement of the blinding obvious, viz it is because it is, or actually does the Universe exist within its current parameters because we are in it. It's a difficult question, and maybe you have a point about our belief in quantum mechanics and relativity. Maybe those theories exist in their format because they describe the Universe we live in, and it is only because we are in the Universe that they exist. It's quite a metaphysical debate.
I really really wonder why people still believe we went tp the moon?
Everything is just against it.
People here probably also believe that evolutio is true, black holes exist, relativity theory is right, quantum nechanics is correct, that there was a Biggie Bangie.
I am at aw at how easy it is to fool the people.[/quite]
I agree. The Stupids are easily fooled by the pseudo-scientific babble of hoax proponents like the Blunder from Down Under - fools leading fools!
My turn. What are your adjudicated credentials in the relevant sciences or professional fields?
QuoteMy turn. What are your adjudicated credentials in the relevant sciences or professional fields?
Now, isn't that stupid,mate ?!
Now you want me to make the error of the logical fallacy of authority.
won't fall for your non sense mate.
Now, can someone explain to me why so many people here really believe we have sent men to the moon?
I am rather curious why and how people believe this utter nonsense.
So, come on.
Maybe you can convince me, and pull me back in your little cult.
And why did NASA itself bring to the world's attention that the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes were lost if they were trying to cover up a hoax? That makes as much sense as bumping off the Apollo 1 astronauts and inviting congress to cancel the program.
Now, can someone explain to me why so many people here really believe we have sent men to the moon?
I am rather curious why and how people believe this utter nonsense.
So, come on.
Maybe you can convince me, and pull me back in your little cult.
Not how it works. Burden of proof's on you.
Now, can someone explain to me why so many people here really believe we have sent men to the moon?
I am rather curious why and how people believe this utter nonsense.
So, come on.
Maybe you can convince me, and pull me back in your little cult.
And why did NASA itself bring to the world's attention that the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes were lost if they were trying to cover up a hoax? That makes as much sense as bumping off the Apollo 1 astronauts and inviting congress to cancel the program.
not really. It has to do with their philosophy.
Besides, it still is too unbeleivable to be true. lost the tapes! And did someone get fired? No! S, they were supposed to get lost!!!!
Too embarrasing if we could see the tapes of their fajery! Those nazis are just scared.
Now, can someone explain to me why so many people here really believe we have sent men to the moon?
I am rather curious why and how people believe this utter nonsense.
So, come on.
Maybe you can convince me, and pull me back in your little cult.
Not how it works. Burden of proof's on you.
Ok, so you can't. Figures.
btw ever tried to convince the cult member of a religion? You can't.
It is the same here. Everything is twisted and edited to keep their religion intact
Funny to see, but also sad in a deep deep way.
Now, can someone explain to me why so many people here really believe we have sent men to the moon?
I am rather curious why and how people believe this utter nonsense.
So, come on.
Maybe you can convince me, and pull me back in your little cult.
Not how it works. Burden of proof's on you.
Ok, so you can't. Figures.
btw ever tried to convince the cult member of a religion? You can't.
It is the same here. Everything is twisted and edited to keep their religion intact
Funny to see, but also sad in a deep deep way.
You want one thing?
See if you can work out what's going on there.
Nice man! pictures! wow! You are the greatest!
lol what utter nonsense again
Now, can someone explain to me why so many people here really believe we have sent men to the moon?
I am rather curious why and how people believe this utter nonsense.
So, come on.
Maybe you can convince me, and pull me back in your little cult.
Not how it works. Burden of proof's on you.
Ok, so you can't. Figures.
btw ever tried to convince the cult member of a religion? You can't.
It is the same here. Everything is twisted and edited to keep their religion intact
Funny to see, but also sad in a deep deep way.
You want one thing?
See if you can work out what's going on there.
Nice man! pictures! wow! You are the greatest!
lol what utter nonsense again
Don't make the fact that you're looking to get banned so obvious. We haven't had a good HB in a long time, and you're disappointing me.
Don't make the fact that you're looking to get banned so obvious. We haven't had a good HB in a long time, and you're disappointing me.
The fact that you even might think that it is a problem for me that I dissapointed you, is telling e a lot, and I mean a lot!
do you people pray together that there is no moon hoax?
someone has going to give.
Don't make the fact that you're looking to get banned so obvious. We haven't had a good HB in a long time, and you're disappointing me.
The fact that you even might think that it is a problem for me that I dissapointed you, is telling e a lot, and I mean a lot!
do you people pray together that there is no moon hoax?
someone has going to give.
Now, can someone explain to me why so many people here really believe we have sent men to the moon?
do you people pray together that there is no moon hoax?
I doubt very VERY much if our little "mate" has anything of substance behind his bluster. His natural home will be on YouTube, so he's completely out of his depth here.
Tinda, me old mucker, here's a list that you might want to use.
- No stars
- No blast crater
- Rockets won't work in a vacuum
- Deadly radiation
- Fluttering flags
- Camera film would burn
- Re-entry wouldn't work
Knock yourself out.
Parallel shadows, secondary light sources, wires and altered film speed?
I doubt very VERY much if our little "mate" has anything of substance behind his bluster. His natural home will be on YouTube, so he's completely out of his depth here.
Tinda, me old mucker, here's a list that you might want to use.
- No stars
- No blast crater
- Rockets won't work in a vacuum
- Deadly radiation
- Fluttering flags
- Camera film would burn
- Re-entry wouldn't work
Knock yourself out.
Parallel shadows, secondary light sources, wires and altered film speed?
The L(E)M is made of cardboard and tinfoil!
Who shot the film of Armstrong leaving the lander?
Who shot the film of the lander leaving the Moon?
Why is there no film or photos of the 'Moon buggy/jeep' being deployed?
Why haven't we been back?
The spacesuits wouldn't work!
Now, can someone explain to me why so many people here really believe we have sent men to the moon?
Because the evidence proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.
What I pray for is an intellectually honest HB.
Now, can someone explain to me why so many people here really believe we have sent men to the moon?
Because the evidence proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.
if that isn't quit some spectacular circular reasoning, i don't know what is.
In essence you are only saying:
it is true because it is true.
How about some real spectacular logic, mate?!
The L(E)M is made of cardboard and tinfoil!
Who shot the film of Armstrong leaving the lander?
Who shot the film of the lander leaving the Moon?
Why is there no film or photos of the 'Moon buggy/jeep' being deployed?
Why haven't we been back?
The spacesuits wouldn't work!
Where are the moon rocks?
C-rock?
Punk rock?
Rock and roll?
The Russians were sold grain?
The data feeds were pre-scripted tapes and were transmitted from relay satellites orbiting the Moon?
The lunar surface was too hot to walk on?
The film would be damaged by radiation?
They couldn't take that many photographs?
The lunar rover didn't form perfect rooster tails?
Aldrin's boot print was impossible.
Take your pick Tindarormkimcha.
In essence you are only saying:
it is true because it is true.
Now, can someone explain to me why so many people here really believe we have sent men to the moon?
Because the evidence proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.
if that isn't quit some spectacular circular reasoning, i don't know what is.
In essence you are only saying:
it is true because it is true.
How about some real spectacular logic, mate?!
Not what he said.
Pick one piece of evidence, start a thread on it and employ some logic of your own.
Otherwise obvious troll is obvious.
In essence you are only saying:
it is true because it is true.
No, he's saying its true because THE EVIDENCE supports it.
The L(E)M is made of cardboard and tinfoil!
Who shot the film of Armstrong leaving the lander?
Who shot the film of the lander leaving the Moon?
Why is there no film or photos of the 'Moon buggy/jeep' being deployed?
Why haven't we been back?
The spacesuits wouldn't work!
Where are the moon rocks?
C-rock?
Punk rock?
Rock and roll?
The Russians were sold grain?
The data feeds were pre-scripted tapes and were transmitted from relay satellites orbiting the Moon?
The lunar surface was too hot to walk on?
The film would be damaged by radiation?
They couldn't take that many photographs?
The lunar rover didn't form perfect rooster tails?
Aldrin's boot print was impossible.
Take your pick Tindarormkimcha.
You are funny, but ah well, let's pick the moon rocks! It has been proven they are faked! right?
The L(E)M is made of cardboard and tinfoil!
Who shot the film of Armstrong leaving the lander?
Who shot the film of the lander leaving the Moon?
Why is there no film or photos of the 'Moon buggy/jeep' being deployed?
Why haven't we been back?
The spacesuits wouldn't work!
Where are the moon rocks?
C-rock?
Punk rock?
Rock and roll?
The Russians were sold grain?
The data feeds were pre-scripted tapes and were transmitted from relay satellites orbiting the Moon?
The lunar surface was too hot to walk on?
The film would be damaged by radiation?
They couldn't take that many photographs?
The lunar rover didn't form perfect rooster tails?
Aldrin's boot print was impossible.
Take your pick Tindarormkimcha.
You are funny, but ah well, let's pick the moon rocks! It has been proven they are faked! right?
Wrong.
Please tell us who has proved them fake, how, when, using what methods. Try and do it without copying and pasting.
Next.
The sock puppet is just trolling. Its not even making a pretence of backing up claims with evidence, just repeating the same old tired, thoroughly debunked rubbish we've all heard before.
I am really saddened by the declining standard of HBs we get these days. There use to at least be a few who were articulate and were a challenge to debate with. This one is both illiterate and ignorant. We know he's going to be banned eventually, why not save the time and effort, and just ban him now!
You are funny, but ah well, let's pick the moon rocks! It has been proven they are faked! right?
I am really saddened by the declining standard of HBs we get these days. There use to at least be a few who were articulate and were a challenge to debate with. This one is both illiterate and ignorant.
You are funny, but ah well, let's pick the moon rocks! It has been proven they are faked! right?
Yeah, why not. Lets see your proof then, but before we do, lets agree terms. "Proof" does not mean a YouTube video with some teenager going "hur hur hur" in the background (if I wanted that, I can get that from you ::) ). Proof means peer-reviewed evidence from an acknowledged expert in the field. "Expert" means someone with recognised credentials in the field, for example geology.
Lets go then.
"Moon rock" in museum is just petrofied wood.http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/ (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/)
(http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg)
AMSTERDAM — It's not green cheese, but it might as well be.
The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.
Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.
"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."
The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.
Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.
"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."
Advertise
He could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.
The U.S. Embassy in the Hague said it was investigating the matter.
The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.
She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.
I am really saddened by the declining standard of HBs we get these days. There use to at least be a few who were articulate and were a challenge to debate with. This one is both illiterate and ignorant.
Its further evidence that the whole Moon hoax thing has passed. 99.999% of people either don't care or accept that the Apollo program happened as described in the historical canon. The remainder seems to be the hard of thinking (people like Heiwa or hunchbacked), those with a financial axe to grind (Sibrel) or the YouTube literati.
Oh and btw the moon is an ARTIFICIAL object.
Lets go then.Challenge for conspiracy hypothesists (honestly, "theorists" is a bit of a stretch in my book):
this is getting ridiculous mate!
You are asking the impossible now. For a reason of course,fear is the key.
btw I have never seen a peer reviewed paper that we have been to the moon, so... with your logic, we never went mate! thanks!
AMSTERDAM — It's not green cheese, but it might as well be.http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/ (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/)
The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.
Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.
"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."
The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.
Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.
"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."
Advertise
He could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.
The U.S. Embassy in the Hague said it was investigating the matter.
The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.
She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.
What I pray for is an intellectually honest HB.
...
Why is there no film or photos of the 'Moon buggy/jeep' being deployed?
...
Well, you don't seem very open minded btw don't you read newspapers? it even was in the newspapers!
...
Why is there no film or photos of the 'Moon buggy/jeep' being deployed?
...
You are sadly mistaken
But this is only one point you are in error.
The guy is simply trolling. It's quite pathetic.
My bad I didn't read it that way, sorry....
Why is there no film or photos of the 'Moon buggy/jeep' being deployed?
...
You are sadly mistaken
But this is only one point you are in error.
I know. I was using that as an example of the inane things HB's claim. :)
It's very hard not to go straight to ridicule of Tindarormkimcha's ridiculousness. We all know how this will end.
I'd never seen that clip before, so thanks for posting it....
Why is there no film or photos of the 'Moon buggy/jeep' being deployed?
...
You are sadly mistaken
But this is only one point you are in error.
I'll give you odds at 1 000 000 - 1 on.
Now, can someone explain to me why so many people here really believe we have sent men to the moon?Why? ALL the facts point to it. It is completely internally and externally consistent. It isn't just the photos and videos, but the tracking done by third parties, the samples brought back, the literal warehouses full of data collected from the missions that ALL points to real landings. In 40+ years, not a single hoax argument has stood up to scrutiny. In fact, hoaxies often just betray how little they know about the subject. I've lost track of how many hoax believers still think there should be stars in the photos or how many are not even aware there was more than one landing.
I am rather curious why and how people believe this utter nonsense.
So, come on.
Maybe you can convince me, and pull me back in your little cult.
I'd never seen that clip before, so thanks for posting it....
Why is there no film or photos of the 'Moon buggy/jeep' being deployed?
...
You are sadly mistaken
But this is only one point you are in error.
And while we are making a list, let's not forget the searing radiation hell of the Van Halen Belts.
Oh and btw the moon is an ARTIFICIAL object.Do you know what crank magnetism is?
Do you know what crank magnetism is?
I'll see you and raise to 1 000 000 000 - 1.
The pro-Apollo crowd will go to almost any lengths to keep their moonlanding mythology alive. From misrepresenting opponents’ positions, debunking non-existent claims, presenting arguments they know are invalid (and hoping you don’t), ignoring key arguments and critical evidence, presenting farcical explanations for the numerous photographic and other anomalies, quote mining, bashing opponents’ long-since-corrected mistakes, lodging fraudulent copyright and privacy claims to get videos pulled, using ridicule in place of argument, character assassinations, and – when all else fails – outright lying. You name it, they’ll do it!
NASA=Numerous Anomalies and Scams Abound.
yes, indeed! or NASA=Never A Straight Answer.
The pro-Apollo crowd will go to almost any lengths to keep their moonlanding mythology alive. From misrepresenting opponents’ positions, debunking non-existent claims, presenting arguments they know are invalid (and hoping you don’t), ignoring key arguments and critical evidence, presenting farcical explanations for the numerous photographic and other anomalies, quote mining, bashing opponents’ long-since-corrected mistakes, lodging fraudulent copyright and privacy claims to get videos pulled, using ridicule in place of argument, character assassinations, and – when all else fails – outright lying. You name it, they’ll do it!
Now you want me to make the error of the logical fallacy of authority.
And so it is.that's funny since you've been asked multiple times to present your proof and have yet to show anything.QuoteThe pro-Apollo crowd will go to almost any lengths to keep their moonlanding mythology alive. From misrepresenting opponents’ positions, debunking non-existent claims, presenting arguments they know are invalid (and hoping you don’t), ignoring key arguments and critical evidence, presenting farcical explanations for the numerous photographic and other anomalies, quote mining, bashing opponents’ long-since-corrected mistakes, lodging fraudulent copyright and privacy claims to get videos pulled, using ridicule in place of argument, character assassinations, and – when all else fails – outright lying. You name it, they’ll do it!
NASA=Numerous Anomalies and Scams Abound.
yes, indeed! or NASA=Never A Straight Answer.
Judging from past questions/lack of response, this will be impossibleNASA=Numerous Anomalies and Scams Abound.
yes, indeed! or NASA=Never A Straight Answer.
Sorry, "mate," this isn't YouTube. Puerile name-calling gets you nowhere. You're expected to actually show some substance.
//www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/[/url]
Never A Straight Answer.
Given the lack of proper responses by Tinda, I'm starting to wonder if this is some form of Turing test.
And so it is.QuoteThe pro-Apollo crowd will go to almost any lengths to keep their moonlanding mythology alive. From misrepresenting opponents’ positions, debunking non-existent claims, presenting arguments they know are invalid (and hoping you don’t), ignoring key arguments and critical evidence, presenting farcical explanations for the numerous photographic and other anomalies, quote mining, bashing opponents’ long-since-corrected mistakes, lodging fraudulent copyright and privacy claims to get videos pulled, using ridicule in place of argument, character assassinations, and – when all else fails – outright lying. You name it, they’ll do it!
My Texas Speak and Spell had more chance of passing the Turing test than Tinda.
I hated the thing when it gave me words with American spelling, I got so frustrated and confused - someone did not think through the British market did they? I did like it color though.
Fig-11: A chemical composition of various Apollo 11 samples. Please note the water contents comparable to their terrestrial cousins (Picture credit: Agrell et al, 1970)
Fig-12: Deuterium to water ratio of various Apollo samples. Note that water contents range between 1,000pmm to 6,000ppm! (Picture credit: Greenwood et al, 2010)
Don't you mean "colour?"
OK, you've got me now. I can't argue with you quoting a song.DAVE HOOK MOON HOAX SONG...
Fig-1: Mercury capsule drop-test. A commercial airline pilot called up Bill Kaysing and said he saw the Apollo 15 capsule “return” to earth in a similar fashion
(http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/tn_Dose_equivalent_rate_of_electrons_in_the_Van_Allen_belts.png)
Fig-2: Van Allen electron dose rate (Picture credit: Kovalev, 1983
I'll see your joke and raise you 50.
fig-3: This chart, published in Astronautical Engineering & Science, “shows one set of rough upper and lower estimates of the integrated dose as a function of water-shield thickness for the low-energy flare events of August, 1958; May, 1959; July, 1959; the intermediate energy even of November, 1960; and the high-energy event of February, 1956. While the dose is given in roentgen equivalent physical (rep), the RBE for high-energy protons is close to one, and therefore the units may be considered as roentgen equivalent man (rem) with little error. However, these curves consider primary radiation alone. Some estimates of the secondary problem for such flares have been made.”
(http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/Air_drop.png)QuoteFig-1: Mercury capsule drop-test. A commercial airline pilot called up Bill Kaysing and said he saw the Apollo 15 capsule “return” to earth in a similar fashion
Tindarormkimcha, spamming images and captions from Jarrah White's website has lost you all credibility.
I'm already on my 6th bingo sheet already!! Won't anyone think of the children?
A much more pertinent question to you is, how do you prove any of these allegations. You have posted quit a few links, but no evidence to any proof.Tindarormkimcha, spamming images and captions from Jarrah White's website has lost you all credibility.
really? ut you can't explain why of course?
He is spot on, mate! I know you do't like that.
I am a bit fed up with all the liers here.
Unlike the government, none of us have any reason to lie. Some might say, "This may be the most dangerous book in the world!" And they just might be right! This book demonstrates--with scientific argument and empirical proof--that Man did not go to the Moon, that Paul McCartney was replaced after his death in 1966 and that the official narrative of the Holocaust cannot be sustained. It also explains how and why the United States hung one of his doubles, not the real Saddam Hussein, and that Osama bin Laden was not killed by U.S. Navy SEALs in Pakistan in 2011, but died from his medical conditions in 2001, where it was politically expedient for him to die a second time.
really? ut you can't explain why of course?
really? ut you can't explain why of course?
Because every piece of evidence that Jarrah White has presented has been debunked. Look up Jarrah's polar orbit and then tell me I should take him seriously.
Tindarormkimcha, spamming images and captions from Jarrah White's website has lost you all credibility.
really? ut you can't explain why of course?
He is spot on, mate! I know you do't like that.
I am a bit fed up with all the liers here.
Tindarormkimcha, spamming images and captions from Jarrah White's website has lost you all credibility.
really? ut you can't explain why of course?
He is spot on, mate! I know you do't like that.
I am a bit fed up with all the liers here.
Then why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
DAVE HOOK MOON HOAX SONGNot without entertaining value, I admit. To express my gratitude, here's something I made just for you. I call it "Ode for a troll":
QuoteUnlike the government, none of us have any reason to lie. Some might say, "This may be the most dangerous book in the world!" And they just might be right! This book demonstrates--with scientific argument and empirical proof--that Man did not go to the Moon, that Paul McCartney was replaced after his death in 1966 and that the official narrative of the Holocaust cannot be sustained. It also explains how and why the United States hung one of his doubles, not the real Saddam Hussein, and that Osama bin Laden was not killed by U.S. Navy SEALs in Pakistan in 2011, but died from his medical conditions in 2001, where it was politically expedient for him to die a second time.
really? ut you can't explain why of course?
Because every piece of evidence that Jarrah White has presented has been debunked. Look up Jarrah's polar orbit and then tell me I should take him seriously.
ok I will look into that,
btw how about there beinge TOO MANY photoos?
DAVE HOOK MOON HOAX SONGNot without entertaining value, I admit. To express my gratitude, here's something I made just for you. I call it "Ode for a troll":
There once was a hoax nut named Jarrah
Whose math skills were grossly in errah.
He couldn't do fractions
And laws of attractions
Would make him scream "Please stop the terrah!"
Jack White's BS now? He subtracted time for different experiments because he didn't realize that part of the experiment was taking pictures and documenting it. He thinks there are too many photos because his only experience was with studio photography and couldn't comprehend that a point and shoot type of photo doesn't take any time to set up. He didn't realize that multiple photos could be taken in rapid succession when they did the panoramas. IIRC he didn't realize there were two cameras on each mission from Apollo 12 on. He also didn't realize that you can see most of the photos being taken in the videos and they are also mentioned in the transcripts. Simply put, he was wrong.really? ut you can't explain why of course?
Because every piece of evidence that Jarrah White has presented has been debunked. Look up Jarrah's polar orbit and then tell me I should take him seriously.
ok I will look into that,
btw how about there beinge TOO MANY photoos?
really? ut you can't explain why of course?
Because every piece of evidence that Jarrah White has presented has been debunked. Look up Jarrah's polar orbit and then tell me I should take him seriously.
ok I will look into that,
btw how about there beinge TOO MANY photoos?
You should see my vacation photo album.
Tindarormkimcha, spamming images and captions from Jarrah White's website has lost you all credibility.
really? ut you can't explain why of course?
He is spot on, mate! I know you do't like that.
I am a bit fed up with all the liers here.
Then why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
Do you want me too? and if so, why don't you put me simply on ignore? too difficult eh?
really? ut you can't explain why of course?
Because every piece of evidence that Jarrah White has presented has been debunked. Look up Jarrah's polar orbit and then tell me I should take him seriously.
ok I will look into that,
btw how about there beinge TOO MANY photoos?
You should see my vacation photo album.
No, thanks and as always , you are NOT adressing the issue.
my god, why do people still believe in this utter nonsense?
It really must be a very deep religious belief. There is no other way.
We know how to hold 'em here. :DI'll see you and raise to 1 000 000 000 - 1.
Man, I should have known better and not start gambling with a Texan. 8)
My Texas Speak and Spell had more chance of passing the Turing test than Tinda.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ng0xRZ8XL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
my god, why do people still believe in this utter nonsense?
It really must be a very deep religious belief. There is no other way.
Snorkels in Space: NASA Outfitting Spacesuits with Diver-like Device for Upcoming Spacewalks
http://www.space.com/24027-nasa-spacesuit-snorkels-spacewalk.html (http://www.space.com/24027-nasa-spacesuit-snorkels-spacewalk.html)
Oh wow, are we moving on to 'The ISS is fake' now?
Tindarormkimcha, spamming images and captions from Jarrah White's website has lost you all credibility.
Oh wow, are we moving on to 'The ISS is fake' now?
Textbook Gish Gallop. It's almost beautiful.
Tindarormkimcha, spamming images and captions from Jarrah White's website has lost you all credibility.Don't be silly! That would require having credibility in the first place!
almost...it still needs improvement, though.
...So when are you going to stop Gish Galloping and start to present evidence of any of your assertions?
So when are you going to stop Gish Galloping and start to present evidence of any of your assertions?
Well, there was a huge pile of pseudoscience attempting to discredit the Apollo lunar specimens. But since we've already determined that Tinda-whatsis...
...has no expertise in science, we get to decide whether to trust his interpretation of geology evidence or the entire world's professional geological community. Tough choice.
For my money, the wait is over. I'm stepping out on a limb here, but I'll go with the entire world's professional geological community. :)Well, there was a huge pile of pseudoscience attempting to discredit the Apollo lunar specimens. But since we've already determined that Tinda-whatsis...
As he shall be known from this day forth.Quote...has no expertise in science, we get to decide whether to trust his interpretation of geology evidence or the entire world's professional geological community. Tough choice.
I'll have to go away and think about that. :P
For my money, the wait is over. I'm stepping out on a limb here, but I'll go with the entire world's professional geological community. :)
Really? You're siding with all the relevant scientists in the world over some nut on the Internet?
Precisely and while I'm a religious man it is not religion but the science and engineering that proves my belief.For my money, the wait is over. I'm stepping out on a limb here, but I'll go with the entire world's professional geological community. :)
Really? You're siding with all the relevant scientists in the world over some nut on the Internet? Must be a religious belief.
Precisely and while I'm a religious man it is not religion but the science and engineering that proves my belief.
Precisely and while I'm a religious man it is not religion but the science and engineering that proves my belief.
That's all very well and good, but it doesn't prove anything. ;)
You couldn't make this up!Dontcha love the way he shows no sign of actually having read the links he posts, let alone understand them.QuoteSnorkels in Space: NASA Outfitting Spacesuits with Diver-like Device for Upcoming Spacewalks
http://www.space.com/24027-nasa-spacesuit-snorkels-spacewalk.html (http://www.space.com/24027-nasa-spacesuit-snorkels-spacewalk.html)
Dontcha love the way he shows no sign of actually having read the links he posts, let alone understand them.
really? ut you can't explain why of course?No, every one of these out-of-context factoids and silly conspiracy claims you are regurgitating can and have been explained here and on other forums many times. The problem is that you can't explain them; copying and pasting things you don't understand isn't an argument. Again, this isn't a YouTube comments thread; you're expected to put a little thought into your claims.
He is spot on, mate! I know you do't like that.You mean the kid who claimed a polar orbit was a circular path above a given latitude? Hilarious, especially since you are blindly quoting him as an authority after smugly lecturing us about arguments from authority.
I am a bit fed up with all the liers here.I think Apollo happened largely as described, and unlike you I have actually studied the program a little and have some clue what I'm talking about. I work in his field, in fact, and used to work for the guys that designed the vehicles that returned men from space beginning with Mercury. Come to think of it, I've worked in the same hangar in which the Mercury capsules were readied for flight. I think it's funny that you're calling us "liers", as if the opinion of an anonymous, clueless troll counted for anything.
He is spot on, mate! I know you do't like that.You mean the kid who claimed a polar orbit was a circular path above a given latitude? Hilarious, especially since you are blindly quoting him as an authority after smugly lecturing us about arguments from authority.
btw I have never seen a peer reviewed paper that we have been to the moon
You couldn't make this up!QuoteSnorkels in Space: NASA Outfitting Spacesuits with Diver-like Device for Upcoming Spacewalks
http://www.space.com/24027-nasa-spacesuit-snorkels-spacewalk.html (http://www.space.com/24027-nasa-spacesuit-snorkels-spacewalk.html)
of course they need snorkels!!! the whole thing is filmed in WATER to look like it is in space!
Only psychopaths do things like that!
Mastracchio and Hopkins won't face that issue thanks to the addition of a 20-inch-long (50 centimeter) tube running from the front of their helmet down to their midriff.
btw I have never seen a peer reviewed paper that we have been to the moon
Pal, now that I've done some research for you and shown you a number of peer-reviewed papers on Lunar rocks do you know withdraw this assertion?
And I'm still waiting for your evidence to support the claim that the Moon rocks are fakes. When are you going to provide it?
(http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies_files/image091.jpg)
And I'm still waiting for your evidence to support the claim that the Moon rocks are fakes. When are you going to provide it?
(http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies_files/image100.jpg)
I provided that some postings back, in which a moonrock was just petrofied wood.
And I'm still waiting for your evidence to support the claim that the Moon rocks are fakes. When are you going to provide it?
So, you really are blind? I provided that some postings back, in which a moonrock was just petrofied wood.
The whole moon thing is nonsense to its teeth!
Unbelievable people swallow that nonsense, hook, line and...
Comment from Buzz Aldrin re his alleged journey to the Moon:
"Well, you’re talking to the wrong guy! Why don’t you talk to the administrator at NASA? We were passengers."
Buzz Aldrin Apollo astronaut
Comment ...
Giant light bulb, who makes this stuff up?
And I'm still waiting for your evidence to support the claim that the Moon rocks are fakes. When are you going to provide it?
So, you really are blind? I provided that some postings back, in which a moonrock was just petrofied wood.
The whole moon thing is nonsense to its teeth!
Unbelievable people swallow that nonsense, hook, line and...
(http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies_files/image082.jpg)
(http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies_files/image066.jpg)Or the far more logical conclusion, tracks are not often visible due to the angle of the photos taken AND they were often obscured by kicked dust.
Nope, the photo in question has not been removed from the LPI.Jack White did. The majority of recent posts come from his humor.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6765
...and you accused us of going to any lengths.
Giant light bulb, who makes this stuff up?
And of course don't forget in all this enormous confusion these people are in here that the moon is really an artificial object! NOT a natural one!
And I'm still waiting for your evidence to support the claim that the Moon rocks are fakes. When are you going to provide it?
So, you really are blind? I provided that some postings back, in which a moonrock was just petrofied wood.
The whole moon thing is nonsense to its teeth!
Unbelievable people swallow that nonsense, hook, line and...
And of course don't forget in all this enormous confusion these people are in here that the moon is really an artificial object! NOT a natural one!
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Giant light bulb, who makes this stuff up?
I think Jack White made that one up.
And I'm still waiting for your evidence to support the claim that the Moon rocks are fakes. When are you going to provide it?
So, you really are blind? I provided that some postings back, in which a moonrock was just petrofied wood.
The whole moon thing is nonsense to its teeth!
Unbelievable people swallow that nonsense, hook, line and...
did you ever show that it was ever claimed by NASA to be a Moon rock? No? That's because it wasn't. It was ASSUMED to be a Moon rock when it was found in the late prime minister's estate.
And of course don't forget in all this enormous confusion these people are in here that the moon is really an artificial object! NOT a natural one!Except you can't prove that.
And of course don't forget in all this enormous confusion these people are in here that the moon is really an artificial object! NOT a natural one!
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Come on, admit it lady, you haven't done your research now, have you?
(http://cb.pbsstatic.com/l/39/1639/9781842931639.jpg)
And I'm still waiting for your evidence to support the claim that the Moon rocks are fakes. When are you going to provide it?
So, you really are blind? I provided that some postings back, in which a moonrock was just petrofied wood.
The whole moon thing is nonsense to its teeth!
Unbelievable people swallow that nonsense, hook, line and...
It was not given by NASA.
And I'm still waiting for your evidence to support the claim that the Moon rocks are fakes. When are you going to provide it?
So, you really are blind? I provided that some postings back, in which a moonrock was just petrofied wood.
The whole moon thing is nonsense to its teeth!
Unbelievable people swallow that nonsense, hook, line and...
did you ever show that it was ever claimed by NASA to be a Moon rock? No? That's because it wasn't. It was ASSUMED to be a Moon rock when it was found in the late prime minister's estate.
yeah!!!!! a FAKE ONE for heaven's sake!
They seem to have no problem to lie and cheat and what have you.
Australian Viewers See Something
That Proves Apollo 11 Was A Fake
In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change could be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.
Western Australia received their coverage in a different way to the rest of the World. They were the only Country where there wasn't a delay to the 'live' transmission. Bill Kaysing says 'NASA and other connected agencies couldn't get to the Moon and back and so went to ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) in Massachusetts and asked them how they could simulate the actual landing and space walks. We have to remember that all communications with Apollo were run and monitored by NASA, and therefore journalists who thought they were hearing men on the Moon could have easily been misled. All NASA footage was actually filmed off TV screens at Houston Mission Control for the TV coverage... No one in the media were given the raw footage.'
Bill Wood is a highly qualified scientist and has degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and a space rocket and propulsion engineer. He has been granted high security clearance for a number of top secret projects and has worked with Macdonald Douglas and engineers who worked on the Saturn 5 rocket (the Apollo launch vehicle). He worked at Goldstone as a Communications Engineer during the Apollo missions. Goldstone in California, USA, were responsible for receiving and distributing the pictures sent from the Apollo to Houston. He says early video machines were used to record the NASA footage here on Earth by the TV networks. They received the FM carrier signal on Earth, ran it through an FM demodulator and processed it in an RCA scan converter that took the slow scan signal and converted it to the US standard black and white TV signal. The film was then sent onto Houston. When they were converting from slow scan to fast scan, RCA used disc and scan recorders as a memory and it played back the same video several times until it got an updated picture. In other words the signal was recorded onto video one then converted to video two. Movie film runs at 30 frames per second, whereas video film runs at 60 frames per second. So in other words the footage that most people saw that they thought was 'live' wasn't, and was actually 50% slower than the original footage!!!
And of course don't forget in all this enormous confusion these people are in here that the moon is really an artificial object! NOT a natural one!Except you can't prove that.
QuoteAustralian Viewers See Something
That Proves Apollo 11 Was A Fake
In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change could be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.
Western Australia received their coverage in a different way to the rest of the World. They were the only Country where there wasn't a delay to the 'live' transmission. Bill Kaysing says 'NASA and other connected agencies couldn't get to the Moon and back and so went to ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) in Massachusetts and asked them how they could simulate the actual landing and space walks. We have to remember that all communications with Apollo were run and monitored by NASA, and therefore journalists who thought they were hearing men on the Moon could have easily been misled. All NASA footage was actually filmed off TV screens at Houston Mission Control for the TV coverage... No one in the media were given the raw footage.'
Bill Wood is a highly qualified scientist and has degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and a space rocket and propulsion engineer. He has been granted high security clearance for a number of top secret projects and has worked with Macdonald Douglas and engineers who worked on the Saturn 5 rocket (the Apollo launch vehicle). He worked at Goldstone as a Communications Engineer during the Apollo missions. Goldstone in California, USA, were responsible for receiving and distributing the pictures sent from the Apollo to Houston. He says early video machines were used to record the NASA footage here on Earth by the TV networks. They received the FM carrier signal on Earth, ran it through an FM demodulator and processed it in an RCA scan converter that took the slow scan signal and converted it to the US standard black and white TV signal. The film was then sent onto Houston. When they were converting from slow scan to fast scan, RCA used disc and scan recorders as a memory and it played back the same video several times until it got an updated picture. In other words the signal was recorded onto video one then converted to video two. Movie film runs at 30 frames per second, whereas video film runs at 60 frames per second. So in other words the footage that most people saw that they thought was 'live' wasn't, and was actually 50% slower than the original footage!!!
...
...
...
...
...
...
Some of the Eleven Apollo astronauts had non space related fatal accidents within a twenty two month period of one another, the odds of this happening are 1 in 10,000...coincidence?
James B. Irwin (Apollo 15) resigned from NASA and the Air Force on July 1, 1972.
Don F. Eisele (Apollo 7) resigned from NASA and from the Air Force in June 1972.
Stewart Allen Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA and retired from the Air Force in February 1976.
Swigert resigned from NASA in 1977
Why did they all resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program?
Australian Viewers See Something
Why did they all resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program?
QuoteAustralian Viewers See Something
That Proves Apollo 11 Was A Fake
In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day
In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
Apollo was over. They weren't going into space anymore. How DARE they want to do something else with the rest of their lives!QuoteSome of the Eleven Apollo astronauts had non space related fatal accidents within a twenty two month period of one another, the odds of this happening are 1 in 10,000...coincidence?
James B. Irwin (Apollo 15) resigned from NASA and the Air Force on July 1, 1972.
Don F. Eisele (Apollo 7) resigned from NASA and from the Air Force in June 1972.
Stewart Allen Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA and retired from the Air Force in February 1976.
Swigert resigned from NASA in 1977
Why did they all resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program?
Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?
QuoteIn 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
QuoteWhy did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?
QuoteSome of the Eleven Apollo astronauts had non space related fatal accidents within a twenty two month period of one another, the odds of this happening are 1 in 10,000...coincidence?
James B. Irwin (Apollo 15) resigned from NASA and the Air Force on July 1, 1972.
Don F. Eisele (Apollo 7) resigned from NASA and from the Air Force in June 1972.
Stewart Allen Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA and retired from the Air Force in February 1976.
Swigert resigned from NASA in 1977
Why did they all resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program?
1. Since the moon missions were over, just maybe they resigned because they weren't going back to the moon?QuoteSome of the Eleven Apollo astronauts had non space related fatal accidents within a twenty two month period of one another, the odds of this happening are 1 in 10,000...coincidence?
James B. Irwin (Apollo 15) resigned from NASA and the Air Force on July 1, 1972.
Don F. Eisele (Apollo 7) resigned from NASA and from the Air Force in June 1972.
Stewart Allen Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA and retired from the Air Force in February 1976.
Swigert resigned from NASA in 1977
Why did they all resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program?
QuoteAustralian Viewers See Something
That Proves Apollo 11 Was A Fake
In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day
Um, the Apollo 11 moon walk was in the early AFTERNOON in Australia.
Prove they were.QuoteWhy did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?
Wow, this is without question the most boring troll I have ever come across on a discussion forum. No arguments, just regurgitatating long-debunked BS and refusing to engage.
Wow, this is without question the most boring troll I have ever come across on a discussion forum. No arguments, just regurgitatating long-debunked BS and refusing to engage.
They may have had some idea that no one was going to leave Earth orbit for the next 40 odd years. Been there, done that, time to get on with life.
It's like he's not really trying. Kind of sad really.
QuoteSome of the Eleven Apollo astronauts had non space related fatal accidents within a twenty two month period of one another, the odds of this happening are 1 in 10,000...coincidence?
James B. Irwin (Apollo 15) resigned from NASA and the Air Force on July 1, 1972.
Don F. Eisele (Apollo 7) resigned from NASA and from the Air Force in June 1972.
Stewart Allen Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA and retired from the Air Force in February 1976.
Swigert resigned from NASA in 1977
Why did they all resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program?
I'm starting to think this guy is, himself, a hoax. Not a hoax believer. A hoax.
And of course don't forget in all this enormous confusion these people are in here that the moon is really an artificial object! NOT a natural one!
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Come on, admit it lady, you haven't done your research now, have you?
(http://cb.pbsstatic.com/l/39/1639/9781842931639.jpg)
QuoteIn 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
QuoteSome of the Eleven Apollo astronauts had non space related fatal accidents within a twenty two month period of one another, the odds of this happening are 1 in 10,000...coincidence?
James B. Irwin (Apollo 15) resigned from NASA and the Air Force on July 1, 1972.
Don F. Eisele (Apollo 7) resigned from NASA and from the Air Force in June 1972.
Stewart Allen Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA and retired from the Air Force in February 1976.
Swigert resigned from NASA in 1977
Why did they all resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program?
Come on, admit it lady, you haven't done your research now, have you?
Plus, it had pilots. People on board to to judge the situation and make changes when needed. For example, if Apollo 11 had been a probe, its autopilot would have taken it into a boulder field, and it likely would have crashed. But Neil went manual and guided the thing down, using his skill, experience and his eyeballs and brain to make corrections the computer could not.QuoteIn 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
What a gullible rube. 99.99% of the memory of any computer game is for the graphics. You don't need graphics if you have a window. Calculating the physics is a lot simpler than calculating the graphics. A long time ago I wrote a computer game in GW-basic on an old Zenith computer to land a lunar module on the Moon. Its only graphics was a print out of the altitude, down-range distance, vertical velocity, horizontal velocity, thrust, and fuel remaining. It took less than 2 kb. A "simple calculator" is all you need to land on the Moon. The hard part of the mission, the orbital mechanics, was solved back on Earth using the supercomputers of the day and the results radioed up to the spacecraft.
I'm starting to think this guy is, himself, a hoax. Not a hoax believer. A hoax.
Oh, I'm quite sure he's laughing with puerile glee at his success in making the regulars jump. He obviously has absolutely no interest in following up to anything he posts, or even reading the responses.
A drive-by scatter-gun poster huh?
Tindarormkimcha,
Like others have said, I am saddened by the current state of team "hoax believers". They have suffered too many defeats, and lost all of their best players. Maybe it's a rebuilding year. But there isn't much hope for your team if you're the best they've got left.
How about you prove to us that you actually understand the subject and can discuss it intelligently instead of just copying and pasting from other sites? I'm so fed up with hoax believers like you who come in here guns blazing just to create a high post count as quickly as possible.
You have made 67 posts in a little over 24 hours, and there has been no substance to any of them. It has just been a regurgitation of other people's hoax claims that were debunked years ago. Do you not feel shame from the poor quality of your argument? Do you not look at what you have posted and think "I can do better!"? Your work has been lazy. If you were my student, I would fail you. If you were my employee, I would fire you.
So here is the deal: I'm close to banning you for trolling since you appear to be more interested in provoking anger than you are in having an intelligent conversation. But I'm going to give you one more chance. Pick your strongest proof that the moon landings were faked and make your case. We will discuss it until there is agreement to move on to the next topic. If you continue to just spam the forum with material from other hoax believers without at least attempting to discuss it I will ban you. Or would you rather just admit you don't have what it takes and quit now?
(http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies_files/image091.jpg)Sooo, NASA is going to proudly display the props they used to execute the fake?
I believe those were used in a simulation. That is, as part of the flight training of the Apollo astronauts, closed circuit cameras linked to controls in the LM and CSM and moved over the model in response, the video being displayed in the 'windows'. A similar system was used for aircraft flight simulators before real time computer graphics became practical for this.
I believe those were used in a simulation. That is, as part of the flight training of the Apollo astronauts, closed circuit cameras linked to controls in the LM and CSM and moved over the model in response, the video being displayed in the 'windows'. A similar system was used for aircraft flight simulators before real time computer graphics became practical for this.Exactly; I've seen the same setup (camera "flying" over a model) used to train drone operators in the '60s. The maps and models were made from astronomical and unmanned spacecraft observations. The idea that there is something suspicious about NASA making such models to train flight crew is just ignorant and paranoid. The idea that they would use these models to fake the missions is even "dumberer", since the use of such models and other forms of training were widely publicized.
Can I ask a practical question? Should we maybe upgrade Tindarormkimcha's status to the planet after Neptune?But...but...but there isn't a planet after Neptune. ;)
Maybe the one before Neptune, then. Seems appropriate. :o
Can I ask a practical question? Should we maybe upgrade Tindarormkimcha's status to the planet after Neptune?But...but...but there isn't a planet after Neptune. ;)
Regarding the model landscape. I am so very curious how the completely different depth-of-field that is blatantly obvious on films such as the MIT coverage of the LM, could fool anyone.
QuoteWhy is it a sick joke? Do you understand what constitutes a sick joke?
No, mate of course not. ;)
I really really wonder why people still believe we went tp the moon?
Everything is just against it.
People here probably also believe that evolutio is true...
...black holes exist...
...relativity theory is right...
...quantum nechanics is correct...
...that there was a Biggie Bangie.
I am at aw at how easy it is to fool the people.
But you know how it is:
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT0OiNLLh5AVeQedZ7phcyUGqaWmj2j1yWuURX1gzIj5mjLvDTWFLgV9Q)
Where are the moon rocks?
C-rock?
Punk rock?
Rock and roll?
The Russians were sold grain?
The data feeds were pre-scripted tapes and were transmitted from relay satellites orbiting the Moon?
The lunar surface was too hot to walk on?
The film would be damaged by radiation?
They couldn't take that many photographs?
The lunar rover didn't form perfect rooster tails?
Aldrin's boot print was impossible.
Take your pick Tindarormkimcha.
You are funny, but ah well, let's pick the moon rocks! It has been proven they are faked! right?
It was all an illusion, including that "moon rock" given to the Dutch "by the Apollo 11 astronauts".
Um, no. Try these people: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/
Incidentally, were the Soviets in on it too? Do you think the Cold War was faked?
Quote"Moon rock" in museum is just petrofied wood.http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/ (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/)
(http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg)
AMSTERDAM — It's not green cheese, but it might as well be.
The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.
Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.
"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."
The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.
Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.
"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."
Advertise
He could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.
The U.S. Embassy in the Hague said it was investigating the matter.
The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.
She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.
(http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies_files/image099.jpg)
What joy these psychopatjh have!!! What a wonderfull time!
They are reallyu glowing after their great hoax oeps achievement! Halleluja!
LOL
QuoteAustralian Viewers See Something
That Proves Apollo 11 Was A Fake
In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change could be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.
QuoteWestern Australia received their coverage in a different way to the rest of the World. They were the only Country where there wasn't a delay to the 'live' transmission. Bill Kaysing says 'NASA and other connected agencies couldn't get to the Moon and back and so went to ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) in Massachusetts and asked them how they could simulate the actual landing and space walks. We have to remember that all communications with Apollo were run and monitored by NASA, and therefore journalists who thought they were hearing men on the Moon could have easily been misled. All NASA footage was actually filmed off TV screens at Houston Mission Control for the TV coverage... No one in the media were given the raw footage.'
Bill Wood is a highly qualified scientist and has degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and a space rocket and propulsion engineer. He has been granted high security clearance for a number of top secret projects and has worked with Macdonald Douglas and engineers who worked on the Saturn 5 rocket (the Apollo launch vehicle). He worked at Goldstone as a Communications Engineer during the Apollo missions. Goldstone in California, USA, were responsible for receiving and distributing the pictures sent from the Apollo to Houston. He says early video machines were used to record the NASA footage here on Earth by the TV networks. They received the FM carrier signal on Earth, ran it through an FM demodulator and processed it in an RCA scan converter that took the slow scan signal and converted it to the US standard black and white TV signal. The film was then sent onto Houston. When they were converting from slow scan to fast scan, RCA used disc and scan recorders as a memory and it played back the same video several times until it got an updated picture. In other words the signal was recorded onto video one then converted to video two. Movie film runs at 30 frames per second, whereas video film runs at 60 frames per second. So in other words the footage that most people saw that they thought was 'live' wasn't, and was actually 50% slower than the original footage!!!
Isn't this an allegation by Blunder-boy? Or Did Kaysing/Rene start this? Too bad you can't post to Blunder-down-under's web page to refute this bit of BS.QuoteAustralian Viewers See Something
That Proves Apollo 11 Was A Fake
In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change could be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.
Nope, they didn't.
You see, I bothered to do the research. I went to the National Library and read through a couple of months' worth of the "West Australian" on microfilm from July to September 1969.
Lots of articles about Apollo 11 and how people in Perth were going to see the Moon walk. Even a few letters to the editor complaining about the cost of the mission. But no articles and no letters to the editor from anyone claiming to have seen any Coke bottles or other anomalies.
Isn't it about time for the C rock?So far, all his posts together make nothing but a big steaming crock.
Also, why is it that all hoaxer believers seem to think Apollo sprang up from no-where? Ranger, Surveyor, Mercury and Gemini seem jibberish to them.
Isn't this an allegation by Blunder-boy? Or Did Kaysing/Rene start this? Too bad you can't post to Blunder-down-under's web page to refute this bit of BS.
Australian Viewers See SomethingI have read the Clavius account, I was just referencing the part where several other viewers had seen the bottle..
That Proves Apollo 11 Was A Fake
In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change could be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.
QuoteIn 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
For TindarormkimchaI hadn't read that, thanks. All I watched were some NOVA (I believe) documentaries that said in essence the same thing, Jack Garman's check list for all the error codes helped get over the critical nature of the message.
Since you are so interested in popular writings on Apollo. Here is a well written layman's article put up on Ars Technica about the guidance computer and the program alarms that threatened the A11 landing.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/no-a-checklist-error-did-not-almost-derail-the-first-moon-landing/
I have read the Clavius account, I was just referencing the part where several other viewers had seen the bottle..
Sorry for my bad referencing.
For Tindarormkimcha
Since you are so interested in popular writings on Apollo. Here is a well written layman's article put up on Ars Technica about the guidance computer and the program alarms that threatened the A11 landing.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/no-a-checklist-error-did-not-almost-derail-the-first-moon-landing/
As you have stated, AULIS took down any kind of rebuttal communication, obviously for good reason.I have read the Clavius account, I was just referencing the part where several other viewers had seen the bottle..
Sorry for my bad referencing.
Yes, thanks for the clarification. The claims about several other viewers having seen it and having written in to the West Australian about it are part of Bennett and Percy's Una Ronald story. To my knowledge, The Blunder has not weighed in on that story or any aspect of it.
Integrated Circuits:
First concieved...1949
First fabricated...1958
AGC memory? Sufficient to it's task. They weren't trying to run Call of Duty on it.
In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
I doubt if Tinda-whatever (or whoever he's cribbing from) understands the difference between an IC "computer chip" and a microprocessor "computer chip". As you noted SSI ICs had been around since the early 60's. Even the first microprocessors were just around the corner by the time of Apollo, with the Intel 4004 being released in '71.In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
I was fiddling with RTL chips in my science classes at high school... that was in 1968-71. These chips had been used in the Space Program since 1962.
Next!
I believe those were used in a simulation. That is, as part of the flight training of the Apollo astronauts, closed circuit cameras linked to controls in the LM and CSM and moved over the model in response, the video being displayed in the 'windows'. A similar system was used for aircraft flight simulators before real time computer graphics became practical for this.
I doubt if Tinda-whatever (or whoever he's cribbing from) understands the difference between.....
Zakalwe, if you are interested I have several bits of documentation on the sim setup. One was IIRC published in SMPTE because of its innovative TV arangement. I will need to dig them up though.
Zakalwe, if you are interested I have several bits of documentation on the sim setup. One was IIRC published in SMPTE because of its innovative TV arangement. I will need to dig them up though.
Yes please!
OK you are in luck. I have 3 docs and I'm uploading them to dropbox now. I will send you the link via PM. Anyone else who wants them can PM me. If you are a hoax nut, then add $450 to your request, payable up front.You're too easy
Update: PM sent, mate.
If you are a hoax nut, then add $450 to your request, payable up front.
To put it simply, Tindarormkimcha, reality has its own weight, while computer simulation must simulate the world itself. If you drop a ball, you don't need to do any calculations, but a simulation of dropping a ball would.
It's noteworthy that I have found no mention of the computer claims in Bill Kaysing's book, at least the preview on Google Books, despite being nearly contemporary with Apollo. This kind of claim comes from people who don't realize just how astounding the advances of computers have been. People hold in their pockets computers comparable to the supercomputers of the nineteen eighties.
I know, but then I am a lier, mate. Or is it a lyer?OK you are in luck. I have 3 docs and I'm uploading them to dropbox now. I will send you the link via PM. Anyone else who wants them can PM me. If you are a hoax nut, then add $450 to your request, payable up front.You're too easy
Update: PM sent, mate.
Oh no! I didn't think of that. Always catching me off guard they is.If you are a hoax nut, then add $450 to your request, payable up front.
Watch out. They pay in hoaxbucks.
It was known as Project LOLA- Lunar Orbit and Landing Approach, which consisted of four separate models to simulate the Moon from 200 miles up.Yet again, I learn something in the process of attempting to educate others. I admit, I didn't know the name or details of the project, I just knew something like that was the most reasonable explanation for its use. And, what do you know, I was right.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/multimedia/project-lola.html#.Vbk3nfmIlZg
https://archive.org/details/1964-L-05924
https://archive.org/search.php?query=LOLA%20simulator
The thing is that the "AGC-wasn't-powerful-enough-to-navigate-to-the-moon" crowd don't even realise that, if push comes to shove, you don't even need a computer at all to navigate to the moon. You could do it with a sextant, a table of lunar orbital predictions (called an ephemeris), a slide rule and a window to see out of. It would take a lot more time to do the math, and be more prone to error so it would require lots of checking and rechecking.Reminds me of the British Interplanetary Society's moon rocket plans, from the late 1930's. Or, for that matter, Gordon Cooper and Mercury-Atlas 7.
For Tindarormkimcha
Since you are so interested in popular writings on Apollo. Here is a well written layman's article put up on Ars Technica about the guidance computer and the program alarms that threatened the A11 landing.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/no-a-checklist-error-did-not-almost-derail-the-first-moon-landing/
Thank you very much for that link, Echnaton -- it's an excellent piece of writing, very educational, and well worth saving. If Tindarormkimcha doesn't appreciate it, at least many of the regulars here will.
While I quickly scanned most of the article, focused on a few bits, and still have to read everything closely, one thing really stood out: It's the first recently-written history of an aspect of Apollo in which, for a change, I didn't see any errors. This is a real credit to the author -- it's obvious that he did his homework, unlike some other recent writers. In fact, I've got used to scanning articles quickly to see if they contain some of the more common errors.
Now totally off topic, but your avatar is freaking me the bleepity-bleep out, lol!
You must be great at hotdog eating contests.Now totally off topic, but your avatar is freaking me the bleepity-bleep out, lol!
You should see me in real life....
You must be great at hotdog eating contests.Now totally off topic, but your avatar is freaking me the bleepity-bleep out, lol!
You should see me in real life....
You are funny, but ah well, let's pick the moon rocks! It has been proven they are faked! right?
Yeah, why not. Lets see your proof then, but before we do, lets agree terms. "Proof" does not mean a YouTube video with some teenager going "hur hur hur" in the background (if I wanted that, I can get that from you ::) ). Proof means peer-reviewed evidence from an acknowledged expert in the field. "Expert" means someone with recognised credentials in the field, for example geology.
Lets go then.
this is getting ridiculous mate!
You are asking the impossible now. For a reason of course,fear is the key.
btw I have never seen a peer reviewed paper that we have been to the moon, so... with your logic, we never went mate! thanks!
anyway, about the moon rocks:Quote"Moon rock" in museum is just petrofied wood.
(http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg)
snip
How about a ApolloHoax Facebook page then. :oNow totally off topic, but your avatar is freaking me the bleepity-bleep out, lol!
You should see me in real life....
This lump of wood is clearly not a moon rock. All we have is a confused account of how it came into the possession of an elderly, deaf Dutch chap.
So did Tinda-whatsis get lost when the thread split?He is thinking how to link it. :o
So did Tinda-whatsis get lost whenthe thread splithe ran out of hoax sites to plagiarise from?
Sorry to hear that. Was it related to hoax or something else?No, work. Spilt lip and a few broken teeth.
Sorry to hear that. Was it related to hoax or something else?No, work. Spilt lip and a few broken teeth.
...Uneducationable, personality disorder, low IQ, ..Volatile mix with a short fuse.
It was indeed just confusion.This lump of wood is clearly not a moon rock. All we have is a confused account of how it came into the possession of an elderly, deaf Dutch chap.
The "thinking" process of the hoax believers means that they cannot imagine anyone but NASA (and us, obviously- the paid NASA shills!) telling lies or becoming confused* Anything that claimed by anyone *not* NASA, regardless of education, experience or qualification is automatically assumed to be gospel. Yet they accuse eveyone else of being sheeple or having closed minds, when in reality its people like Tinda-whatshisface that is the most close-minded of all.
It's not like the proponents of the hoax have never been caught lying, now have they?? ::) ::) ::)
*I'm not casting aspersions on Mr Middendorf's good character by the way.