Moon Rock a Fake

Torakx

the doc gline talks about i also watched,
go watch that and then come back here and attempt to post that man has landed on the moon.
end of story really once you watch it.
its no longer categorized under conspiracy for me, just fact.

They did not put man on the moon

just a small example.
the investigators called up the guys who make the actual space suits for NASA.
they asked can they use the suits in places like chernobel for protection against radiation. the reply was no it would not be safe and would afford you no protection against radiation.

so how did they survive on the moon without dying from extreme exposure?
anyway watch the documentary and see for yourselves

gline

King Mob wrote: »

Neither of those points are true.
One the door where wide enough for the astronauts to fix through.
A bit tight but nowhere near impossible.
http://www.clavius.org/lmdoors.html

Are you seriously suggesting that they planned the most elaborate hoax in the history of the world but forgot to make the doors big enough?

The actual original plan might be gone but there's tons of copies.

In fact they're releasing an Apollo owner's manual.
http://www.haynes.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=47367&langId=-1

good points, which side to believe

gline

gline wrote: »

good points, which side to believe

I generally side with the guys who have the science and don't have to rely on increasing complex conspiracies.

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

just a small example.
the investigators called up the guys who make the actual space suits for NASA.
they asked can they use the suits in places like chernobel for protection against radiation. the reply was no it would not be safe and would afford you no protection against radiation.

so how did they survive on the moon without dying from extreme exposure?
anyway watch the documentary and see for yourselves

Because there wasn't enough radiation over the period of time the astronauts were there to do any damage.
They didn't need that much protection.

Do you know exactly how much radiation the astronaut where exposed to on the Moon? Or how much is needed to kill a man.

And of course they wouldn't protect you in Chernobyl that's not what they were designed for.

There's a slight difference between Chernobyl and the surface of the moon don't you think?

Torakx

i wouldnt think no.but how are we to know? NASA?
that was only a small point. they covers the actual footage of them on the moon jumping around.the landing footage.
i dont want to go into detail and give you half the info they had in a disorganised manor.but its definetly a good watch regardless wether you want to believe it

it just makes so much sense when you see the pressure NASA was under to keep the fund coming in.

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

i wouldnt think no.but how are we to know? NASA?
that was only a small point. they covers the actual footage of them on the moon jumping around.the landing footage.
i dont want to go into detail and give you half the info they had in a disorganised manor.but its definetly a good watch regardless wether you want to believe it

it just makes so much sense when you see the pressure NASA was under to keep the fund coming in.

http://www.clavius.org/

You really should look at this site here.
It debunks alot of the common myths.

The same myths about the moon landing have been recycled over and over again.
I doubt this documentary will have anything new.

4gun

One question how come the russians, who were ahead of the americans in the space race at the time, never actually went to Moon or even attempt their true goal of landing a cosmonaut on Mars aka the red planet
you go beyond the Ionospere and your completly bombarded by cosmic rays

Torakx

wow nice link thanks for that was interesting reading.
i dont think it covers everything.
im still trying to find a debunk for the paper moons examination of the footage shot.
i agree the door issue is a small one which i might have been possible but hard to tell for me id have to actually go there and measure it myself.

im still of the opinion it was faked.
the video covered alot of interesting angles and reasons why it would be faked.
will have another look at that link and see if i can prove myself to be wrong in my thinking.

squod

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.clavius.org/

You really should look at this site here.
It debunks alot of the common myths.

The same myths about the moon landing have been recycled over and over again.
I doubt this documentary will have anything new.

LRO is up ther about now, "debunking'' stuff as we speak.
Stuff like how much radiation is on the moons surface and whether a human could play golf on it in a space suit before they're minced by solar flares etc.


Also loads of LQ 2D pics on that site of the moon landers, even more HQ sterioscopic pics of moon craters.
A great site, well worth a look. Even if you're not a moon fanatic.

4gun

4gun wrote: »

One question how come the russians, who were ahead of the americans in the space race at the time, never actually went to Moon or even attempt their true goal of landing a cosmonaut on Mars aka the red planet

Might have something to do with the worse technology the smaller budget or the general collapse of Communism.

The Russians where never that far ahead. America launched their first astronaut only a few weeks after the Gagarin. The Americans weren't to first to hit the dramatic milestones first dog, fist man, first woman etc. but they were the first to hit some of the important milestone like first docking manoeuvre in space etc.

4gun wrote: »

you go beyond the Ionospere and your completly bombarded by cosmic rays

Not really.
They don't give enough rads to kill you in the time they were on the Moon.

squod

squod wrote: »

LRO is up ther about now, "debunking'' stuff as we speak.
Stuff like how much radiation is on the moons surface and whether a human could play golf on it in a space suit before they're minced by solar flares etc.


Also loads of LQ 2D pics on that site of the moon landers, even more HQ sterioscopic pics of moon craters.
A great site, well worth a look. Even if you're not a moon fanatic.

The LRO isn't debunking anything.
The images weren't mean to settle the conspiracy theories (no picture would regardless of the quality.)

Solar flares where a concern on the mission but they didn't make them impossible.
http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html

squod

King Mob wrote: »

The LRO isn't debunking anything.
The images weren't mean to settle the conspiracy theories (no picture would regardless of the quality.)

Solar flares where a concern on the mission but they didn't make them impossible.
http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html

LRO is the latest one, jaxa sent one and there was another previously sent.
The link hasn't proved jack. There'll be another probe sent before 2020,
send NASA the link if your so confident. Sure you'd save them billions.

squod

squod wrote: »

LRO is the latest one, jaxa sent one and there was another previously sent.
The link hasn't proved jack. There'll be another probe sent before 2020,
send NASA the link if your so confident. Sure you'd save them billions.

Ok the moon missions aren't to disprove the conspiracy theories.
Quite frankly NASA has better thing to do, like science.

The LRO has just been the first thing able to take those pictures.

And what exactly is wrong in the link?

squod

I'd imagine it was JAXA's kaguya that would've seen good images of the moon landers first.

The link is fine if you believe all that crap. Clearly NASA doesn't, or JAXA.
Me I'm not so bothered. I'm not going to the moon, all that radiation'll put me off my food.

4gun

comunisum didn't collapse untill the late 80's they had supierios technology in rocket terms to the americans and an inexhaustible budget in the late 60's Its never been truly explained why they didn't make the moon even if in second place their shuttle program was axed due to lack of funds but again that was in the 80's

4gun

4gun wrote: »

comunisum didn't collapse untill the late 80's they had supierios technology in rocket terms to the americans and an inexhaustible budget in the late 60's Its never been truly explained why they didn't make the moon even if in second place their shuttle program was axed due to lack of funds but again that was in the 80's

The Russian rocket technology wasn't necessarily better.

For one example the Jupiter 5 had five powerful engines.
The Russians rocket had twenty and was much more prone to failure.

The American's docking and tracking systems where just better.

Both space programme didn't have "inexhaustible budgets".
The American pumped more into theirs and had much better R+D.

Once America got the moon, Russia just couldn't have been bothered.

Torakx

hmm wasnt it after hitler was dispatched with his possible ufo technology that the russians and yanks started reaching seriously for the skies?

alot of german scientists went to the states after that war. i wouldnt be suprised if there wa sa fight for the technology they had also.

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

hmm wasnt it after hitler was dispatched with his possible ufo technology that the russians and yanks started reaching seriously for the skies?

alot of german scientists went to the states after that war. i wouldnt be suprised if there wa sa fight for the technology they had also.

The Germans where making a lot of guided rockets.
Namely the V1s and the V2.

No need to invoke UFO to explain it.

4gun

King Mob wrote: »

The Russian rocket technology wasn't necessarily better.

For one example the Jupiter 5 had five powerful engines.
The Russians rocket had twenty and was much more prone to failure.

The American's docking and tracking systems where just better.

Both space programme didn't have "inexhaustible budgets".
The American pumped more into theirs and had much better R+D.

Once America got the moon, Russia just couldn't have been bothered.

russian rocket tecnology was more fuel efficient they could carry bigger pay loads which is why their nuclear missles were bigger and more powerful than the us their engined were better consider the anatov aero plane is the biggest payload carrier in the world

saying that they just couldn't be bothered going thats just lame
if you spent money on building a car and then won one in the lottery would you still not take the one you made out for a drive

4gun

4gun wrote: »

russian rocket tecnology was more fuel efficient they could carry bigger pay loads which is why their nuclear missles were bigger and more powerful than the us their engined were better consider the anatov aero plane is the biggest payload carrier in the world

Now I may be wrong but Anatov is a Jet not a spacecraft.

And there where a ton of other advances the Americans had over the Russians, namely a working moon lander, and an actual plan to get to the moon.

4gun

King Mob wrote: »

Now I may be wrong but Anatov is a Jet not a spacecraft.

And there where a ton of other advances the Americans had over the Russians, namely a working moon lander, and an actual plan to get to the moon.

you said american technology was better I just proved it wasn't russian missiles couls fly farther with a bigger payload than american the anatov just proved they had better jet propulsion as well well i will concede that the victors write the history so maybe they went in another direction because the US pulled off the bigggest con job in history:D

4gun

4gun wrote: »

you said american technology was better I just proved it wasn't russian missiles couls fly farther with a bigger payload than american the anatov just proved they had better jet propulsion as well well i will concede that the victors write the history so maybe they went in another direction because the US pulled off the bigggest con job in history:D

Proved it?
Where?
You insisted the Russians where better.
And unfortunately your word isn't proof.

The Anatov was build in the eighties. So I fail to see how it, a jet plane, has anything to do with proving the effectiveness of spacecraft in the 60's.

Maybe you can answer the elusive question: why didn't the Russians call bull****?

4gun

has all the same traits as your word
where is your proof hmmm...
you keep knocking every one with out a single shred of evidence, only whats commonly believed
In 1492 you'd have told Colunbus that he was going to fall off the edge of the world

4gun

4gun wrote: »

has all the same traits as your word
where is your proof hmmm...
you keep knocking every one with out a single shred of evidence, only whats commonly believed
In 1492 you'd have told Colunbus that he was going to fall off the edge of the world

So not going to answer the question then?

4gun

King Mob wrote: »

So not going to answer the question then?

fact is this theory started almost straight away after the "moon landings" had the russians came out and claimed it was a hoax well it would have been labeled as communist propaganda by the US

4gun

4gun wrote: »

fact is this theory started almost straight away after the "moon landings" had the russians came out and claimed it was a hoax well it would have been labeled as communist propaganda by the US

And when has being labelled "communist propaganda" ever stopped it?
Why not just claim it anyway.

Why not just show the hard evidence?
Or leak it to people who can show the evidence?

indough

the recruitment of german scientists after the war is known as operation paperclip, the scientists used for the space program were v1/v2 related, it had nothing to do with ufo's

also not much point in russians walking on the moon after the americans beat them to it really, it was called the space race because it was a race, and there isnt much point in throwing good money after bad just so that you can say you came second in a two contender race now is there, the only reason either was interested in the thing at all was to prove superiority over the other

4gun

King Mob wrote: »

So not going to answer the question then?

if I could conclusively prove the the moon landings were faked, well.... it would no longer be a theory ...not to mention the scoup of the millenium then this would be a history forum
apologies for earlier this morning for calling you "dumbo" inexcusable and obviously the trading of petty insults is beneth you due to your lack of retaliation:D

toiletduck

IT'S A FAAAAAKE!

4gun

no.... thats a vulcan