Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 51

Thread: The Unmentionable Fakery of the Apollo Missions.

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Southside, Virginia, way out in the sticks.
    Posts
    104

    The Unmentionable Fakery of the Apollo Missions.

    OK, ok....I know we're not supposed to realize that the "moon missions" were very obviously bullshit. NASA is a sacred cow which should never be questioned or considered for defunding, because, dammit they put us on the MOON fer the luvva Pete. These trips to the moon were served up to us when we really needed to believe that "we", the (powerful federal government) people" could do anything better and faster than those communist Russians.

    About a year ago, on EPA, the discussion of something led to the mention of the Apollo moon missions. Remembering how absolutely phony the TV images seemed to me at the time, with the astronauts jumping around like crippled fleas in the low gravity of the moon, I joined in the discussion and was led by a posted link to a site, which linked to a series of articles titled "Wagging the Moondoggie". Here's a link to the opening article:

    http://www.whale.to/b/mcgowan3.html

    Here's a link to the series of articles and the other works by the same author.

    http://davesweb.cnchost.com/index.html

    And a Wayback Machine page of his older site:

    http://web.archive.org/web/200102030....com/index.htm

    Anyway, I was hooked. All the moonshot fakery sites I'd visisted were kind of boring and seemed devoted to arguing over minutae. Dave's writing and the way he pointed out obvious questions anyone might ask when confronted with the silliness of the official stories were mcuh more interesting.

    Check it out, and feel free to point out to me that I'm a delusional, tinfoil hat wearing idiot. When you do, maybe you can also show me where the author of the series is wrong. Hope somebody gets a kick out of all this.

  2. #2
    Wait, so you're saying the moon-landing didn't happen?

  3. #3
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    Well, I for one have severe doubts, David. The majority of my misgivings relate to the extremely doubtful photographs and the apparent lack of any moon surface disturbances caused by the 'landing'. Looking at the footprints left by the astronauts, around the landing module, then at the complete absence of dust on the module surfaces it just does not compute. If the sub surface was rock, then the reverse thrust rockets would have blown away all traces of dust for about fifty yards or more around the touchdown area. Shadows going off in all directions don't help any either. I'm left with a mental image of a very large film set and some very early digital editing coupled with some poor efforts at continuity.


    I would, however love to believe it really did happen - it is just that nothing I have seen so far convinces me absolutely.

    Ken.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  4. #4
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    I have absolutely no interest in the politics/conspiracy controversy. At the time the flights took place I was pleased to think that space was being opened up for exploration and amazed by the (apparent) technology. Then I saw the photographs and videos when they were published and thought 'Oh dear'.

    Ken.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Southside, Virginia, way out in the sticks.
    Posts
    104
    Ken, I'm with you on that point and on many of the other questions brought up in the series. The utter absurdity that the technology to make spacesuits existed in 1969, but doesn't exist today is one point. The idea that somehow the etxreme distance involved in traveling there was easily surmountable in 1969, but is insurmountable today is also absurd. If you get around to reading some of the series you may be intrigued by the author's observations. I surely was.

  6. #6
    I honestly have no knowledge about this, but frankly, I fail to see what the liberty movement has to gain from even pursuing this line of thinking. Its kind of like the Holocaust Denial movement. Yes, I believe the holocaust actually did happen. No, I don't think everyone who denies it is necessarily an anti-semite. But since the Holocaust was never used to justify the war when it was actually going on, who cares? If you don't believe it happened, OK, whatever. But what does it have to do with anything? All it does is making you look like a whackjob with nothing to gain.

    Minus the racism, the same is true for the anti-moon landing view, IMO.

    Personally, I don't really care if you want to believe either of those things happened or not, but I don't see how it actually helps anything. The 9/11 truth movement I can at least understand because the 9/11 attacks actually were used to justify two wars. I'm not a truther (Yet another thing I'm not too informed on, but I mostly agree with Michael Scheuer, minus his assumption that action in Afghanistan was necessary, which I do not agree with) but I can at least understand the point in arguing for that conspiracy theory if you really do believe in it.

    Now, when it comes to foundational truths, being called a whackjob isn't necessarily a problem. Most people are naturally enemies of the anti-state, anti-war, pro-market (To borrow from LewRockwell.com) philosophy. No need to turn away some who might actually agree with us because of "conspiracy theories" or what have you.

    Any thoughts on this?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Southside, Virginia, way out in the sticks.
    Posts
    104
    "Any thoughts on this?"

    Yeah, here's a thought: not everything I do or say has to be done or said with en eye to how it "helps the liberty movement". If this doesn't interest you, go find a thread about abortion. That's obviously your main interest. Since I've been active in what you refer to as "the liberty movement" since before you were born, you may want to allow me a little leeway on what I choose to post. There are other threads if this one doesn't meet your standards.

    Another thought: if someone who may otherwise "actually agree with us" was inclined to turn away because I am interested in this topic, well...... fuck'em and feed 'em fish heads. How about a little of that?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    I don't want to steer this thread too far off topic but do you honestly think that the reason google earth censors North Korea photos is because it fears retaliation from the North Koreans? North Korea has, according to the mainstream media, openly threatened to strike the United States, several times. And according to the mainstream media, North Korea has the missile capabilities of *insert witty sarcastic thing here* because the North Koreans cannot even get a single missle to launch correctly without it dunking straight into the ocean.

    I don't know what North Korea is hiding for our government to not allow us to see it, but I'd bet all my integrity that it has everything to do with a power grab for the government, not threats from an apparently 3rd world country. (I say "apparently" because I've never been to North Korea and have never spoken to anyone from there. I've only heard and read stories from the mainstream media about them. Given the mainstream media's track record, I think they're full of shit about North Korea and of course the moon landing).
    I wasn't saying that North Korea was threatening anything so much as North Korea possibly managing to hide itself from Google Earth. That said, your theory is possible too. I don't know.

    That said, I've heard enough from people who have lived in NK that I seriously doubt its a wonderful place to live. That doesn't mean they're a threat to the US either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed View Post
    "Any thoughts on this?"

    Yeah, here's a thought: not everything I do or say has to be done or said with en eye to how it "helps the liberty movement". If this doesn't interest you, go find a thread about abortion. That's obviously your main interest. Since I've been active in what you refer to as "the liberty movement" since before you were born, you may want to allow me a little leeway on what I choose to post. There are other threads if this one doesn't meet your standards.

    Another thought: if someone who may otherwise "actually agree with us" was inclined to turn away because I am interested in this topic, well...... fuck'em and feed 'em fish heads. How about a little of that?
    Wow... that was a little harsh. Yeah, I get what you're saying. Of course you can talk about whatever you want. And of course I talk about things that have nothing to do with politics as well.

    But I believe this sort of thing is actually hurting the anarcho-capitalist cause, making it look like everyone who hates the State must be a "Conspiracy theorist." But hey, I'm young. Maybe I'm completely wrong

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Southside, Virginia, way out in the sticks.
    Posts
    104
    ". Maybe I'm completely wrong"

    Yeah, I'd say that's a distinct possibility. Those who want to call anyone questioning the obvious absurdities in government fables "conspiracy theorists" are being roundly ignored these days, in case you haven't noticed. Government shills are shouted down on blogs everywhere and they only manage to keep their input going on mainstream media outlets online. Those outlets are ignored and reviled by increasingly large segments of online participants, as well.

    Who really cares what those assholes say? This is a thread about the series of articles. If you haven't read some of the articles, or even one of them, you have nothing to contribute to the discussion and are hijacking the thread. That's generally considered rude behavior in a forum setting. People who persist in that kind of "participation" get the reputation of being trolls.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed View Post
    ". Maybe I'm completely wrong"

    Yeah, I'd say that's a distinct possibility. Those who want to call anyone questioning the obvious absurdities in government fables "conspiracy theorists" are being roundly ignored these days, in case you haven't noticed. Government shills are shouted down on blogs everywhere and they only manage to keep their input going on mainstream media outlets online. Those outlets are ignored and reviled by increasingly large segments of online participants, as well.

    Who really cares what those assholes say? This is a thread about the series of articles. If you haven't read some of the articles, or even one of them, you have nothing to contribute to the discussion and are hijacking the thread. That's generally considered rude behavior in a forum setting. People who persist in that kind of "participation" get the reputation of being trolls.
    Fair enough. Have fun with this one.

  11. #11
    Senior Member grouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,139
    A really good telescope will pick out the landing sites. With no atmosphere to suspend dust, it doesn't act like it does here in air. It takes a super powerful telescope but when the sun is at the correct angle, you can see a glint of sunlight off the left behind equipment.
    Last edited by grouch; 11-28-2013 at 08:09 PM. Reason: I kant spel wurth a durn.
    Honk if you love Jesus.

    Text if you want to meet him.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    89
    Excuse me Ed, are you really trying to tell me that "we" didn't fly 400,000 mile round trips to the moon and back, over 40 years ago? Pffft. (sarcasm)

    I remember those discussions, because I was a part of them, I believe they were from around last February (2013) if anyone wants to dig them up...

    Technology in every other field has advanced by over 10 fold in 40 years, space exploration is the only one that has seemed to have gone backwards...because it never happened. Nothing but bullshit propaganda to keep "us" thinking our wonderful government is out to use science to discover new things for "our" benefit.


    To David: This has to do with the liberty movement because if the government is willing to take miraculous steps to lie to everyone about its space exploration...what else do you think it's lying about?



    Our government does indeed go into outer space, but it is only so that it can set up spying satellites and weapons. Don't believe me? Go take a look at "Google Earth" and find your house, your neighborhood, and zoom in. Notice anything weird? "They" haven't updated it in over 3 years and "they" only allow us peasants to "zoom in" to a certain distance. If you don't think they are purposely not updating their shit, and not spying on us with further "zoom" capabilities then what "they" allow us to view, well then please pass your koolaid in my direction because I would love nothing more than to live in ignorant bliss once again. Also, take a look at North Korea on google maps....notice they have the whole fucking country censored? If the country is such a shit hole like our government says it is, why not allow us the "pleasure" of viewing the evidence for ourselves? (answer: because they're lying to us and don't want us to see the truth).


    Wake up!
    Last edited by Jacob; 11-28-2013 at 10:06 PM. Reason: typos, making myself sound smart, etc

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Excuse me Ed, are you really trying to tell me that "we" didn't fly 400,000 mile round trips to the moon and back, over 40 years ago? Pffft. (sarcasm)

    I remember those discussions, because I was a part of them, I believe they were from around last February (2013) if anyone wants to dig them up...

    Technology in every other field has advanced by over 10 fold in 40 years, space exploration is the only one that has seemed to have gone backwards...because it never happened. Nothing but bullshit propaganda to keep "us" thinking our wonderful government is out to use science to discover new things for "our" benefit.


    To David: This has to do with the liberty movement because if the government is willing to take miraculous steps to lie to everyone about its space exploration...what else do you think it's lying about?



    Our government does indeed go into outer space, but it is only so that it can set up spying satellites and weapons. Don't believe me? Go take a look at "Google Earth" and find your house, your neighborhood, and zoom in. Notice anything weird? "They" haven't updated it in over 3 years and "they" only allow us peasants to "zoom in" to a certain distance. If you don't think they are purposely not updating their shit, and not spying on us with further "zoom" capabilities then what "they" allow us to view, well then please pass your koolaid in my direction because I would love nothing more than to live in ignorant bliss once again. Also, take a look at North Korea on google maps....notice they have the whole fucking country censored? If the country is such a shit hole like our government says it is, why not allow us the "pleasure" of viewing the evidence for ourselves? (answer: because they're lying to us and don't want us to see the truth).


    Wake up!
    First off, I'm not going to claim to know all there is to know, but I am "awake" at least to the point where I don't believe that "government" is in any way necessary. If I'm still asleep, I guess my estimate of maybe 2% of people being awake is far, far too generous.

    Regarding North Korea, I suppose its possible that it is as you say but its also very possible that North Korea wouldn't allow anyone to see anything. Bad as the US government is, I don't see why it necessarily must be them here. And frankly, any system built around a worship of the government leaders themselves has to suck regardless of what else happens.

    Regarding the moon, even if the landing really did happen (I presume it did though I haven't looked into what you guys are saying) I have no doubt a purely free market economy could have done that more quickly, more efficiently, less waste, etc. And without the theft, at that.

    As for the spying, I don't doubt for a second the US government has been updating their spying capabilities. In fact, I'd go so far as to say... of course they have.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by David View Post
    Regarding North Korea, I suppose its possible that it is as you say but its also very possible that North Korea wouldn't allow anyone to see anything.
    I don't want to steer this thread too far off topic but do you honestly think that the reason google earth censors North Korea photos is because it fears retaliation from the North Koreans? North Korea has, according to the mainstream media, openly threatened to strike the United States, several times. And according to the mainstream media, North Korea has the missile capabilities of *insert witty sarcastic thing here* because the North Koreans cannot even get a single missle to launch correctly without it dunking straight into the ocean.

    I don't know what North Korea is hiding for our government to not allow us to see it, but I'd bet all my integrity that it has everything to do with a power grab for the government, not threats from an apparently 3rd world country. (I say "apparently" because I've never been to North Korea and have never spoken to anyone from there. I've only heard and read stories from the mainstream media about them. Given the mainstream media's track record, I think they're full of shit about North Korea and of course the moon landing).

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by grouch View Post
    A really good telescope will pick out the landing sites. With no atmosphere to suspend dust, it doesn't act like it does here in air. It takes a super powerful telescope but when the sun is at the correct angle, you can see a glint of sunlight off the left behind equipment.

    Can you please show me a link to some pictures of these "super telescopes" that witness the landing sites? Thank you.

  16. #16
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by grouch View Post
    A really good telescope will pick out the landing sites. With no atmosphere to suspend dust, it doesn't act like it does here in air. It takes a super powerful telescope but when the sun is at the correct angle, you can see a glint of sunlight off the left behind equipment.
    Or, maybe, it is the sunlight reflecting off the telescope of a moonman looking up at earth to try and pick up the equipment that they left behind. (Sorry, Grouch, couldn't resist.) Could it not just be reflecting off something dumped during a fly-by? The only real answer is going to be found by actually visiting the moon with a couple of independent witnesses - let's go.

    Ken.
    Last edited by Ken; 11-29-2013 at 06:39 AM.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Southside, Virginia, way out in the sticks.
    Posts
    104
    For a few more of the absurdities mentioned in the artciles, here are a few snippets:

    "On July 16, 1969, Apollo 11, the flight that would allegedly land men on the Moon for the first time, took flight. Five days later, on July 21, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin allegedly first set foot on lunar soil. Three days later, the trio of Apollo astronauts triumphantly returned home to a hero’s welcome."


    Hmmm....three days travel back to Earth from the moon....now, how far is it again? That was a quick return trip.

    "While lounging in the command module, unencumbered by spacesuits, gloves and helmets, and with the luxury of being able to hold their NASA-issue cameras in their hands, the crew (James McDivitt, David Scott, and Rusty Schweickart) took photos of each other that are unfocused, poorly composed, and not particularly well exposed – which is, of course, exactly the results that one would expect from amateur photographers using cameras that lacked viewfinders.

    However, after those very same astronauts donned their suits, gloves and helmets, and then ventured out for a spacewalk, making it rather difficult for them to stabilize themselves (and therefore their cameras), something truly wondrous and magical happened: the crew of Apollo 9 suddenly gained the ability to shoot absolutely stunning compositions that look like they were professionally produced in a studio. Though it’s hard to pick a favorite, the one featuring the Earth’s reflection perfectly framed in one of the actor’s helmet visors is pretty impressive.
    While lounging in the command module, unencumbered by spacesuits, gloves and helmets, and with the luxury of being able to hold their NASA-issue cameras in their hands, the crew (James McDivitt, David Scott, and Rusty Schweickart) took photos of each other that are unfocused, poorly composed, and not particularly well exposed – which is, of course, exactly the results that one would expect from amateur photographers using cameras that lacked viewfinders.

    However, after those very same astronauts donned their suits, gloves and helmets, and then ventured out for a spacewalk, making it rather difficult for them to stabilize themselves (and therefore their cameras), something truly wondrous and magical happened: the crew of Apollo 9 suddenly gained the ability to shoot absolutely stunning compositions that look like they were professionally produced in a studio. Though it’s hard to pick a favorite, the one featuring the Earth’s reflection perfectly framed in one of the actor’s helmet visors is pretty impressive..........All of the astronauts on future Apollo missions, of course, proved themselves to be exceptional photographers as well, but only when operating under the most difficult of conditions. Neil Armstrong, the very first photojournalist to allegedly work on the Moon, that most foreign of environments, set the bar exceedingly high for all who were to follow. HJP Arnold, considered to be one of the world’s foremost authorities on space photography before his death in June 2006, once said of the film magazine allegedly shot by Armstrong:

    “That sequence of images on the lunar surface, taken mainly by Armstrong of course with that one camera … That film probably I would say has never, ever been bettered, whether on the Moon or subsequently. Almost every one of those relatively small number of images taken by Armstrong appear to be splendidly composed. You remember the classic face-on picture of Aldrin with his visor reflecting the entire landing scene – the lunar module, the flag, the TV camera, and Armstrong taking the picture, uh, reflected in the visor? It’s a marvelous picture!”

    Despite all the acclaim he has received for his exploits as an astronaut, Neil Armstrong clearly has been unjustly denied recognition of his astounding abilities as a photographer. Some may argue that he clearly was not playing in the same league as, say, an Ansel Adams, but I beg to differ. Adams created some awe-inspiring work, to be sure, but could he have done so while wearing a spacesuit, gloves and helmet, and with his camera mounted to his chest, and while acclimating himself to an environment that featured no air, greatly reduced gravity, and extreme heat and cold?

    I think not."

    Good points. If you read the article and view the photos he mentions, you'll probably laugh out loud at the obvious accuracy of his observation.

  18. #18
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed View Post
    Hmmm....three days travel back to Earth from the moon....now, how far is it again? That was a quick return trip.
    Three days, 72 hours, 232,000 miles (roughly) that works out, if my mental arithmetic is correct at an average speed of around 3250 mph. The maths seems OK to me, much more believable than the photographs. Earth's escape velocity is, I believe around 17500 mph, the moon's EV woould be considerably less.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Southside, Virginia, way out in the sticks.
    Posts
    104
    I agree on the escape velocity of Earth, but what makes the return trip time ridiculous is that no such escape velocity was acheived to leave a moon orbit. The proposition put forward by NASA was that the spacecraft would achieve escape velocity and simply "fall through space" to its destination and back. That's simply another absurdity which has been illustrated by their accounts of the space shuttle's travels.

  20. #20
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    Earth escape Velocity is around 17500 mph. The lunar escape velocity is around 5300 mph. The CSM motor is specified at 20,500 lb thrust yielding a max delta v of around 6300 mph. The ascent module engines were specced to provide a (lunar) thrust to weigh ratio of just over 2:1. On the basis of those figures then both ascent to the CSM and the achievement of lunar escape velocity by the CSM are, theoretically, perfectly viable. After achieving escape velocity and engine shutdown the CSM would have coasted towards earth, once the earth's gravitational pull became greater than that of the moon then the CSM would have begun to accelerate - if we assume rentry speed around the same as lunar escape velocity (actually I think it would have been much higher) then the 3250 average mph for the return journey would appear quite feasible.

    The specifications make the trip apparently feasible - the photographic records make me doubt it ever took place. One other little thought crosses my mind - if ordinary scanner radiation can fog film what effect would cosmic radiation have had on the films in the fairly ordinary little cameras the astronauts were using?

    Ken.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •