NASA sets date for moon mission in 2018

[Trevor Edwards]

NASA sets date for moon mission in 2018. 46 years from the pretend landing but this time they are really going to do it.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...982032195.html

[GingerTez]

Originally Posted by Trevor Edwards

NASA sets date for moon mission in 2018. 46 years from the pretend landing but this time they are really going to do it.

lol, I've read that article too... the one where the whole original moon landing is debunked. No idea where to find it these days though... do you have a link?

Cheers,
Tez.

[Trevor Edwards]

there are thosands of sites on the net dedicated to the moon landing being fake

here is some info i borrowed from a site.

32 things that need to be answered!

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.

21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

28) 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.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?

30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

telescopes should be able to see the Apollo hardware on the Moon, yet none is visible.



Whats your views on this matter people?
do you belive man has set foot on the moon or was it a lie?

[rogerdodger]

that was very intresting reading, it makes you wonder doesn't it.
since 1969 we have been subjected to lots of lies and cover ups.
i wonder who got all the money that supposedly got spent on the mission then? hmmmm..........................

[HeadCrab]

It was so obvious it was fake anyway, they did it to try and claim victory over the Russians in "the space race". Bloody yanks always cheating, first its a race into space, when they lose that they move the goalposts and its suddenly a race to the moon, so they fake it.

[Djm]

Comical. I've answered the first 15 questions or I should say "fictional statements". I'll post it once I've done them all (later tonight)

[Djm]

This is going to take ages, but it proves if you put more thought than a simple copy and paste into it, it's not all it seems. Please don't delete this.

Originally Posted by Trevor Edwards

32 things that djm is going to answer!

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

Rubbish, go and look at any videos of the International Space station, you can't see the stars there and they're actually in space. It's all to do with the camera simply being unable to handle bright and dark situations in the same photo. Go stand infront of a bright window, you'll appear as a black blob, funny that its exactly the same when there's more dark than bright. It's called exposure.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

They didn't have pure oxygen, how can they possibly have pure oxygen when they're breathing out carbon dioxide along with other gaseous substances? If you've actually even inhaled pure oxygen, it gives you a natural high, can't have the astronauts having that. Also why give them pure oxygen when it's more viable to take less oxygen? They didn't.

Even if they did, you're telling me pure oxygen can "melt" metal casing? It's metal, not some crazily reactive element. Why would it melt just the camera, what about the insides of the module? Idiotic.

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

There is nothing, no piece of scientific evidence that says that a substantial blast crater should've been present under the LM DPS bell. Nothing at all.
The fact is, there wasn't one, a fact mentioned by Neil Armstrong himself not 2 minutes after he took his first steps on the Moon.
What he described was no blast crater, but evidence of surface dust erosion, and ray patterns emanating outward from the engine bell area. How is that unusual?

Neil Armstrings first step was planted in dust that had not been touched by the DPS engine blast whatsoever, he didn't come out from underneath the module did he.

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

/sigh
All this needs is a google for how thruster engines work. This is also partly to do with camera exposure again, the thrust is still there, a long exposure allows you to see flames.

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

Hahaha. Footprints are made by compressing compressible subtances. Funnily enough substances aren't compressible because they've got air or moisture in them. It's part of their chemical makeup. The foot prints on the moon were made simply by mass compressing exceedingly fine particles of lunar surface dust. A MIRACLE?! No. Physics.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

5 years ago my TV was analogue with what we now call a crap picture, some sort of conspiracy going on there? No again. Technology evolves, this is simply more BS.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

Does this make sense? I'd like to answer this but I have no idea what the hell it's on about.

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

lol, the Earth does not cast shadows on the moon. This is due to sloping landscape along with various other things, go and take a picture of various objects on a hill compared with flat surfaces, this occurence happens on Earth, we just don't realise it.

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

This C was not on any of the original photos, it's either a fake, or something as simple as a piece of dirt/hair/whatever on the negatives when being reproduced.

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

"Fibreglass whip antenna"......riiiiight. There was a transmitting antenna on the nose of the craft, and funnily enough it withstood the re-entry by design. Just like the heat tiles on the shuttle.

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

Again, lol. "Science fiction movie" - it's exactly that, fiction. There is an awful lot of stuff involved with this, most of you wouldn't understand. Again, google the question and you'll find loads of answers.

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

A suicidial maniac? "Never Tested" - The LM was tested, and very sucessfully, not only in earlier unmanned flights, but on Apollo 9, the march 1969 shakedown of the vehicle in Earth orbit, and on Apollo 10, another test flight in lunar orbit. That's what these flights were for...LM testing and proving. You can't just assume it wasn't tested.

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

Oh right, so because we can jump 1 and half foot on Earth, 6 x 1.5 ~ 10 feet. I can see the point behind this, but it's been by someone who's blind, look at that massive 180 pound backpack on him.

The only way a man could jump 10 feet high on the Moon is without a suit, and that kind of renders the issue moot, since without a suit there's about 15 seconds of consciousness, if that, left for the unprotected man prior to his loss of consciousness and rapid demise from decompression.

--


Fox who first filmed this BS should stick to making cartoons.
It's quite sad that people can't accept it even though the Russians did, it would have been easy for them to come up with this. If I was a scientist/astronaut on this mission, I would be unbelievably annoyed as people urinated all over my work by claiming it was fake without putting a 2nd thought into it.

I said 32, I got bored after 13 because tbh it's pathetic.

[drkul]

ive got an extra that i didnt pick up when skim reading trevs post

have any of you guys seen these cameras they supposedly used up their, the photographs came out so clear but the camera itself had such little twiddly knobs to operate how the hell did a guy in with massive gloves on manage to get such crystal clear pictures?

[Djm]

Stop this, you're making me laugh.

Training/it was set up already/you didn't even see the right camera.

[drkul]

training lol!! yeah like they must have trained them to use chop sticks too

already set up!! yeah it was a disposable cam you get down boots

you didnt see the right camera, im not talking about the ones in the videos, im talking about the actual model of camera they said they used

[Djm]

I don't think you understand how much this mission was prepared for, what do you think they spend the money on? Most of it goes on R&D.

You honestly think they'd give an astronaut that's about to land on the moon a camera he can't even use? Think about it.

[drkul]

think about this

[Djm]

I have and replied with more than 3 words.

[drkul]

lol what did you think, you wont give up, neither will i, let the nation decide

naaaaaaaaaaaaation, oh naaaaaaaaaaaation

was it a hoax?

....

yes

ah there we go settled

urm on a serious note, yes i realise they spend lots of money, but things do go wrong, people forget things, like they did when setting up this hoax.

[Djm]

There's no point even discussing this when you're just going to post childish replies. Therefore, think what you like.

If anyone else wants to see the rest of those 32 questions being ripped apart, read this thread. (click)

[Jon]

come on guys lets keep it on topic

[drkul]

lol yeah on topic please, i wasnt being mean to you, tut.

i seriously believe that they wouldnt have been able to use the cameras even with training, so how does your saying "they got trained" rip that theory apart? i didnt realise that everything you were going to post was going to be right.

[Djm]

I didn't say I'd rip it apart, read that thread, or if you want, post on it and get that bloke to give you a good answer.


or read this, http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

You're only taking in one side of the story, which was made for the media and to get ad revenue, it was made to be fun to watch. This conspiracy theory bollocks didn't exist majorly until FOX aired that program back in 2001.

[Trevor Edwards]

i posted the article as i knew it would get people talking guarenteed.
they always do the questions i posted didnt come from the heart they were copyed & pasted from a site..

but lets not get all wind up about it.

[Djm]

http://www.brainsluice.com/miscellan...onlanding.html

Hilarious