Faking the moon landings

[bobdude11]

I did NOT learn to generate a theory and then only find evidence to prove me right

Don’t talk crap, if I find evidence which proves me right, then the evidence to the contrary must be wrong, right? Or am I overcomplicating things? I know what you were trying to say, but that’s not the way you wrote it down.

A car has a trunk, whereas a spaceship would have a hold, which should have given you a clue that I was using subtle humour.

You made a statement. I read it. I love humor (or humour for my friends in the UK). Love it. Your statement was not humor (not even subtle) - you made the statement, own it, admit you misspoke and let's move on.

It was a joke and you didn’t get it, because like everyone else on here, you are so busy looking for flaws in HB’s comments, you fail to spot sarcasm and humour, even when it should be obvious, so instead of resorting to these childish attacks on my credibility, why don’t you either concede that you may have misconstrued my comment, or just let it go and move on as you put it?

It’s a well-known fact that the majority of Americans just don’t get British humour, as it’s too subtle and clever for them to grasp. There’s an old saying that goes something like “you can take an American to see Ricky Gervais, but you can’t make it laugh”, or words to that effect.

You don't need to see blueprints of an umbrella to prove it can unfold - just open it

So when did you last unfold a LRV?

When did you? You missed the point of the statement, entirely.

No I didn’t, it was a terrible analogy. Nearly everyone over the age of six knows how to open an umbrella, so it is you that missed my point entirely.

You fail to see the difference between controlling an aircraft and controlling a spacecraft, which are two entirely different concepts.

The principal of CG, pitch, yaw, roll, energy, thrust, etc. still apply. Even someone like myself can understand that. Why can't you? Why do you insist on ad hominem attacks when proven incapable of following a simple, proven principle of science?

An aircraft relies on air to manoeuvre, which we are told there is a severe lack of in space. So go on Mr clever clogs, describe the principle which governs an aeroplanes ability to manoeuvre in flight, and then explain how that principle is applied to a crafts manoeuvrability in a vacuum.

Did you misread my post? Or have you been reading other people’s replies and got yourself a little confused? In any case, that was a rash statement on your part, and it shows that it is you with a lack of understanding and I would suggest that you put a little more thought into your posts in future to avoid any further embarrassment. You made the statement, own it!

The rover debate came to a conclusion some time back

Yes it did. Back when Apollo deployed and used it on the Moon; in front of a WORLDWIDE audience. You are the only one that insists that blueprints are the ONLY way to prove it existed/worked as designed.

I think you’ll find that I’m only one among millions of people who would find it absurd that the plans to build a working Rover, LM and Saturn V rocket are nowhere to be found, along with the tools used to build them. Oh but wait, you and millions of others have seen live TV footage which is proof of their authenticity. Pardon me for being such a naive fool.

You fail to understand a simple concept, one person, just one, that knows will inevitably tell another

Not if they’ve signed a contract. Can you even begin to imagine what it would be like to be sworn to secrecy by your government, because I certainly can? The responsibility must be enormous, and what about the people who refuse to sign it? I would imagine they would be in the same situation, only a lot poorer. To blab would be an act of treason in the eyes of their government, and they, and I suspect their families would pay the price.

You also forgot to quote your source on the paragraph with the math

By your own admission you are not one of the more “educated” members on here, and it shows, which is a good thing as you still have a chance to free yourself from the shackles of your indoctrination, but if you’re incapable of looking up gravity equations, then you aren’t deserving of my attention.

Ok, I am a little late to this reply.

You state my umbrella analogy was too simple, yet, you fail to construe the ultimate point: You DON'T need blueprints to know it works, just witness it (like videos of the LRV) or is that too complicated for you?

You also state the plans are not available. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and do a Google search? You might be surprised at what you find.

As to your response to my theory statement:

 Evidence to the contrary, when isolated against the OVERWHELMING evidence in favor, points me to the possibility that my theory (and even the evidence I believe contradicts) is wrong when, ultimately, the majority of experts provide all of the DETAILS to explain why my evidence is incorrect. I then would have to state that my theory has been proven incorrect and I would need to either abandon that theory or rework it and then attempt to prove or disprove.

You take evidence that you claim is contradictory and say it fits your theory. You essentially form the theory, then find evidence to 'prove it'.

I may not be at the level of Jay or many others on here, but I know enough to see the fallacies you present.

The ad hominem of my education (while you know nothing of it), is uncalled for.

MY point is this: it is not MY responsibility to look up gravitational equations. YOU presented your 'evidence' without the source. It is YOUR responsibility to show your work.

I make no claims to be educated in the requisite sciences, but I do hold a Masters in Information Security (backed by a BS in Computer Info Systems, 30 years experience in component level PC repair, 20 years in InfoSec, a CISSP (99487), multiple MCSE certifications, ITIL and previously held several CompTIA certs (A+, Network+, and Security+). ). As you can see, I make no claim to aerospace or any kind of engineering degrees.

I also have a thirst for knowledge, the ability to read and comprehend, and the ability (via my InfoSec training and experience) to follow basic scientific principals

I will never:

• Make claims I cannot back up with evidence (that said, if I misinterpret that evidence, my claim is obviously invalidated. At that point, it will be withdrawn or corrected to resolve the interpretation)
  
• Attack anyone who criticizes my ignorance (I am ignorant for a reason - any criticisms against a statement I make in that ignorance is well deserved and an opportunity to learn and update my knowledge with correct and appropriate information)
  
• Create a theory then only provide 'evidence' that proves the theory
  

I will:

• Enter into debates with an open mind
  
•   Respond (maybe not timely) to anyone responding to me
  
•   Review the information provided, attempt to comprehend it (asking questions or for clarification on points I do not understand), and adjust my responses to reflect my understanding (even correcting my mistake(s) and if necessary, apologize for anything misconstrued)
  
• Recognize that I do not know very much about many, many things and rely on the experts to help me grasp concepts and better understand science
  

To that end, I have a some questions for you; one that will help me understand (hopefully) your motivation for your posts:

• Why do you wish to disprove Apollo so badly?
  
• What is in this for you? (There is a reason why you would do this - I am looking to understand that reason)
  

[Rob48]

I once had somebody suggest that satellite tv wasn't real; that they secretly tapped into cable infrastructure or something.  I asked him why it was, then, that my signal always got worse when there was snow in my dish, and then instantly got better the moment I decided to go out and clean it.

To *that* he mumbled something about some secret technology in the dish that sensed snow or weather, and degraded the signal appropriately.  I then asked him why, if the dish concealed such secret technology, did direcTV not care what I did with the thing when I canceled service? They didn't even want it back when I asked them how to return it.  He didn't have an answer to that one.

Related simple home experiment here: https://www.metabunk.org/how-to-test-if-satellites-are-real.t10730/

[frenat]

Got in an argument in another forum where someone was claiming you could replace weather satellites with aircraft flying 24/7.  Little problems like the fleet size necessary to cover CONUS with no gaps, fuel, aircraft maintenance, spare parts, crew rotation, etc., weren't worth bothering about. 

I found somebody once that tried to argue that satellites were real but only low Earth orbit ones. According to him NOTHING could get past the Van Allen belts, not even radio. So how did they fake the higher ones? Multiple satellites in low orbit all networked together and switching on when in the right position for the observer and off when not. When it was pointed out that it would take thousands to get the right angle simulated for all observers for a single geostationary satellite he claimed they could each simulate multiple different satellites. And this has all been done since the 60's.

[smartcooky]

Got in an argument in another forum where someone was claiming you could replace weather satellites with aircraft flying 24/7.  Little problems like the fleet size necessary to cover CONUS with no gaps, fuel, aircraft maintenance, spare parts, crew rotation, etc., weren't worth bothering about. 

I found somebody once that tried to argue that satellites were real but only low Earth orbit ones. According to him NOTHING could get past the Van Allen belts, not even radio. So how did they fake the higher ones? Multiple satellites in low orbit all networked together and switching on when in the right position for the observer and off when not. When it was pointed out that it would take thousands to get the right angle simulated for all observers for a single geostationary satellite he claimed they could each simulate multiple different satellites. And this has all been done since the 60's.

So when I look up into the sky in the early evening I should see several hundreds of satellites go over during the 90 minutes or so before dark?

'K

[frenat]

Got in an argument in another forum where someone was claiming you could replace weather satellites with aircraft flying 24/7.  Little problems like the fleet size necessary to cover CONUS with no gaps, fuel, aircraft maintenance, spare parts, crew rotation, etc., weren't worth bothering about. 

I found somebody once that tried to argue that satellites were real but only low Earth orbit ones. According to him NOTHING could get past the Van Allen belts, not even radio. So how did they fake the higher ones? Multiple satellites in low orbit all networked together and switching on when in the right position for the observer and off when not. When it was pointed out that it would take thousands to get the right angle simulated for all observers for a single geostationary satellite he claimed they could each simulate multiple different satellites. And this has all been done since the 60's.

So when I look up into the sky in the early evening I should see several hundreds of satellites go over during the 90 minutes or so before dark?

'K

They're all stealth of course.  I'm sure he never really though about how many satellites would be needed to get all the angles right for every person.

[bknight]

Got in an argument in another forum where someone was claiming you could replace weather satellites with aircraft flying 24/7.  Little problems like the fleet size necessary to cover CONUS with no gaps, fuel, aircraft maintenance, spare parts, crew rotation, etc., weren't worth bothering about. 

I found somebody once that tried to argue that satellites were real but only low Earth orbit ones. According to him NOTHING could get past the Van Allen belts, not even radio. So how did they fake the higher ones? Multiple satellites in low orbit all networked together and switching on when in the right position for the observer and off when not. When it was pointed out that it would take thousands to get the right angle simulated for all observers for a single geostationary satellite he claimed they could each simulate multiple different satellites. And this has all been done since the 60's.

So when I look up into the sky in the early evening I should see several hundreds of satellites go over during the 90 minutes or so before dark?

'K

They're all stealth of course.  I'm sure he never really though about how many satellites would be needed to get all the angles right for every person.

This should become reality when SpaceX gets its 11K+ satellites into orbit for internet coverage.

[Von_Smith]

Got in an argument in another forum where someone was claiming you could replace weather satellites with aircraft flying 24/7.  Little problems like the fleet size necessary to cover CONUS with no gaps, fuel, aircraft maintenance, spare parts, crew rotation, etc., weren't worth bothering about. 

I found somebody once that tried to argue that satellites were real but only low Earth orbit ones. According to him NOTHING could get past the Van Allen belts, not even radio. So how did they fake the higher ones? Multiple satellites in low orbit all networked together and switching on when in the right position for the observer and off when not. When it was pointed out that it would take thousands to get the right angle simulated for all observers for a single geostationary satellite he claimed they could each simulate multiple different satellites. And this has all been done since the 60's.

So when I look up into the sky in the early evening I should see several hundreds of satellites go over during the 90 minutes or so before dark?

'K

They're all stealth of course.  I'm sure he never really though about how many satellites would be needed to get all the angles right for every person.

This should become reality when SpaceX gets its 11K+ satellites into orbit for internet coverage.

This would be the Kessler Project?

[bknight]

No, I believe it is called Starlink
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/15/18096943/spacex-fcc-starlink-satellites-approval-constellation-internet-from-space

[smartcooky]

Got in an argument in another forum where someone was claiming you could replace weather satellites with aircraft flying 24/7.  Little problems like the fleet size necessary to cover CONUS with no gaps, fuel, aircraft maintenance, spare parts, crew rotation, etc., weren't worth bothering about. 

I found somebody once that tried to argue that satellites were real but only low Earth orbit ones. According to him NOTHING could get past the Van Allen belts, not even radio. So how did they fake the higher ones? Multiple satellites in low orbit all networked together and switching on when in the right position for the observer and off when not. When it was pointed out that it would take thousands to get the right angle simulated for all observers for a single geostationary satellite he claimed they could each simulate multiple different satellites. And this has all been done since the 60's.

So when I look up into the sky in the early evening I should see several hundreds of satellites go over during the 90 minutes or so before dark?

'K

They're all stealth of course.  I'm sure he never really though about how many satellites would be needed to get all the angles right for every person.

Well it would be about 1.5 million satellites for UK subscribers alone.

[Tedward]

If I understand this stealth thing correctly, it would need to be a wide belt as well?
Couple events every year plague uplink operators and I expect not many subscribers notice it, that is sun outages (sun aligns with the satellite in use, and your antenna). I am not sure what is in place for static uplinks. Depends on location, dish sizes etc. and what sat is being used as to exactly when and how bad it comes right down the bottle for interference.

Quite a thing to see your spectrum swamped but you hope that the universe stays true and you know that it will last perhaps a minute thirty and you are due up on the bird in two minutes time. Bad planning and you are in for some ear ache.

[cambo]

Hey Cambo...what is, in your opinion, the strongest piece of "evidence" that lead you to believe in the hoax nonsense? Just one please..the one that you think is the absolute strongest and the most solid

It has to be the fact that not one other country has attempted to send humans out into deep space, not even a trip around the moon and back. Years back, the Americans were planning to do this very thing until Obama said to hell with that, let’s go to Mars. Then Trump came along and said no, let’s keep it simple and do the moon thing again, but NASA said we aren’t ready yet. I was hoping that Trump would rumble their little game and give their arses a good kicking, but it’s looking like he’s just another puppet in a long line of puppets, at the beck and call of the real people running the show.

Until recently, why has no other country at least thought about doing it just the once? The Russians gave up because they were apparently incapable of designing a rocket that was up to the task and their special FX were naff, but It was a piece of cake for the Americans back then, and even after the alleged near tragedy of Apollo 13, they went ahead with another four missions. Why did they keep going back there every few months, when the job of beating the Russians had already been accomplished? NASA say they travelled to and from the moon nine times in less than four years, and all they did was bring back more moon rocks.

A reflector went up with Apollo 11, so why the need for more reflectors? The camera conveniently broke on Apollo 12, probably because Kubrick had pissed off to start work on A Clockwork Orange and then we had the Apollo 13 near disaster to buy them more time while they perfected their special FX and a couple of missions later, someone came up with the novel idea of taking a car along. Do you really believe that the Russians simply lost interest and gave up because they were beaten to the moon by a country that had always played second fiddle to them in space until the magic of Apollo? How can you possibly accept the fact that no other country has ever had the spare change to develop the technology and do a couple of unmanned missions to test the hardware, followed by a single trip around the moon, when in reality, every country with a space program would be falling over each other to replicate a feat that had already been performed multiple times with apparent ease?

But more importantly, why is it taking so long for NASA to go back? They stopped going to the moon, only because public interest had waned, then destroyed the technology that got them there and decided to circle the earth for the next five decades doing what? They apparently achieved so much in ten years and then threw it all away to do countless meaningless experiments in LEO and a few back flips for the cameras. The Vietnam War cost the US tax payers an estimated 168 billion dollars, which is around a trillion dollars in today’s money, while Apollo cost a measly 25 billion, so you can stick your money excuse where the sun don’t shine.

2024 is the current date planned for the next manned moon landing, but at the moment there is apparently not enough funding, even though I’m guessing it’ll end up being a joint effort, as they’ll all want in on the “act”. The rockets aren’t ready, the new space station is still on the drawing board and because the plans were destroyed for the original lander, which apparently worked almost flawlessly, they now have to find someone to design and build a new one from scratch. So much for the theory that the plans are hidden away somewhere on microfilm, as whoever wins the contract could’ve simply updated the old one.

By the sound of it, 2024 isn’t a realistic goal if they are actually planning to do it this time around, but with CGI being so advanced now, I suspect we will see it go ahead as planned, as they won’t need to use ultra-low quality footage to try and mask the fakery. I took my youngest granddaughter to see the new Dumbo movie, but I made the mistake of telling her the elephant wasn’t real and she now thinks I’m an idiot (try and keep the sarcasm to a minimum). I don’t blame her, as these upcoming moon landings are going to look very real to most people and it may be extremely difficult this time around, to find visual evidence that could cast doubt on their authenticity.

It was made to look like a walk in the park back then, as we had astronauts hopping, dancing, singing and falling over, seemingly without a care in the world. For most, it takes a few beers while on holiday to act in such a childish manner, but that’s showbiz for you I suppose. If you believe that fifty years ago, a big rocket and a shitty computer with a 1.024 MHz processor, 2k memory and 32k storage was enough to launch men into space and navigate to and land on the moon and then take off again and dock with the command module and then navigate back to earth, then you are simply deluded. But if you also accept that it’s ok to go nearly half a century and still not have the means to emulate an achievement that is fast becoming ancient history, then you are beyond delusional. You are asleep.

I fear for Trump’s safety as he has not only given NASA an unrealistic goal to put men on the moon within five years, but he has also challenged the military to create a space force, which has to involve NASA, and we all know what happens to presidents who challenge NASA to do the impossible.

So go on Zakalwe, what, in your own opinion is the strongest piece of evidence that has brought you to believe in this Apollo nonsense? Just the one please. The one that is least likely to make me fall of my chair with laughter. I’ll be back in a few months to read your reply.

[Obviousman]

That's ONE?

(sound of gish-gallopinging into the distance...)

[Ranb]

.... but It was a piece of cake for the Americans back then, and even after the alleged near tragedy of Apollo 13, they went ahead with another four missions.

If you knew much about the Apollo missions you would understand that it was anything but a piece of cake.

Why did they keep going back there every few months, when the job of beating the Russians had already been accomplished?

Because most of the hardware was already purchased for the missions up to Apollo 17.

NASA say they travelled to and from the moon nine times in less than four years, and all they did was bring back more moon rocks.

They also brought back photos, core samples and place experiment packages on the lunar surface.

The camera conveniently broke on Apollo 12, probably because Kubrick had pissed off to start work on A Clockwork Orange and then we had the Apollo 13 near disaster to buy them more time while they perfected their special FX and a couple of missions later, someone came up with the novel idea of taking a car along. Do you really believe that the Russians simply lost interest and gave up because they were beaten to the moon by a country that had always played second fiddle to them in space until the magic of Apollo?

It was just a single camera that broke.  The still photo camera were still used.  While the Soviets were able to put a satellite and man into orbit first, by the time the Gemini program was flying, Americans had far outpaced the Russians in just about everything to do with space flight.

.... when in reality, every country with a space program would be falling over each other to replicate a feat that had already been performed multiple times with apparent ease?

Explain why every country with a space program would want to replicate NASA accomplishments.

But more importantly, why is it taking so long for NASA to go back?

Because NASA can't simply write a check to finance they missions.  Why do you want them to go back anyway?

They stopped going to the moon, only because public interest had waned, then destroyed the technology that got them there and decided to circle the earth for the next five decades doing what?

The tech was not destroyed.  Some of the hardware is still on Earth.  You should take a look at it sometime.

 

They apparently achieved so much in ten years and then threw it all away to do countless meaningless experiments in LEO and a few back flips for the cameras.

Why were the LEO experiments meaningless?

The Vietnam War cost the US tax payers an estimated 168 billion dollars, which is around a trillion dollars in today’s money, while Apollo cost a measly 25 billion, so you can stick your money excuse where the sun don’t shine.

When you can convince anyone to write that check, get back to us.

2024 is the current date planned for the next manned moon landing, but at the moment there is apparently not enough funding, even though I’m guessing it’ll end up being a joint effort, as they’ll all want in on the “act”.

Trump is no JFK and there is no one to race against like there was in the 60's

So much for the theory that the plans are hidden away somewhere on microfilm, as whoever wins the contract could’ve simply updated the old one.

Why use old outdated hardware when we can use safer more efficient new tech?

By the sound of it, 2024 isn’t a realistic goal if they are actually planning to do it this time around,....

Of course it is not realistic.  It is a Trump pipe dream to get there by 2024.

If you believe that fifty years ago, a big rocket and a shitty computer with a 1.024 MHz processor, 2k memory and 32k storage was enough to launch men into space and navigate to and land on the moon and then take off again and dock with the command module and then navigate back to earth, then you are simply deluded.

Since you have no idea how much computing power is required to navigate a ship without a graphic user interface, why do you think that old tech was not up to the task?

[raven]

The whole 'but no ones been back' argument is weapons grade bolognium. It took longer than since Apollo for anyone to return to Challenger Deep, the deepest part of the ocean, a far simpler technical challenge that was met with the resources and pull of a wealthy film director.

[bknight]

That's ONE?

(sound of gish-gallopinging into the distance...)

Exactly.