Hoaxesssss innnnn Spaaaaaace

jetfiremuck

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Indeed. I can`t decide whether this poster is just a troll/windup merchant or if he/she genuinely believes all the utter BS he/she is spouting.

So food for thought..
in 2019 Elon musk can barely get a rocket to return standing up on a barge off shore.

The Falcon Heavy rocket with 27 engines is the most powerful rocket ever to leave the ground......where's the engineering drawings/ propellant formulas used in the moon launches? And why not used today.

That Nixon was able to have a phone conversation with the moon on July 21 1969....... Really

Where are all the rocket launches documented for all those that travel to and from the iss. YouTube videos on iss stage showing the wires etc. look at the videos and ask is it plausible.

King Mob

jetfiremuck wrote: »

So food for thought..
in 2019 Elon musk can barely get a rocket to return standing up on a barge off shore.

The Falcon Heavy rocket with 27 engines is the most powerful rocket ever to leave the ground......where's the engineering drawings/ propellant formulas used in the moon launches? And why not used today.

That Nixon was able to have a phone conversation with the moon on July 21 1969....... Really

Where are all the rocket launches documented for all those that travel to and from the iss. YouTube videos on iss stage showing the wires etc. look at the videos and ask is it plausible.

Literally all of that is googleable.
You and conspiracy nuts like you just never bother to do basic research or apply critical thinking.
Or they are trolls.

jetfiremuck

OH I forgot to add....look at the size comparison of the lunar lander the size of the astronauts, their gear shielding.......where did they fit the lunar rover fffs...did they put it together like a mecanno set fffs. What weight was that cmon lads

jetfiremuck

King Mob wrote: »

Literally all of that is googleable.
You and conspiracy nuts like you just never bother to do basic research or apply critical thinking.
Or they are trolls.

And Jesus walked the earth

firemansam4

King Mob wrote:

Literally all of that is googleable. You and conspiracy nuts like you just never bother to do basic research or apply critical thinking. Or they are trolls.

That poster didn't even look up what he was quoting, as it was in reference to the original OP not just the moon landings.

King Mob

jetfiremuck wrote: »

OH I forgot to add....look at the size comparison of the lunar lander the size of the astronauts, their gear shielding.......where did they fit the lunar rover fffs...did they put it together like a mecanno set fffs. What weight was that cmon lads

Lol yea you cracked it.

The biggest conspiracy in the world that involves every scientist even 50+ years later and they accidentally made the lander too small.
Then you, the clever boy you are figured it out without so much as looking at plans for the lander.
Good job. They would have gotten away with it if it werent for you...

SlowBlowin

jetfiremuck wrote: »

The Falcon Heavy rocket with 27 engines is the most powerful rocket ever to leave the ground......where's the engineering drawings/ propellant formulas used in the moon launches? And why not used today.

WRONG, Saturn 5 was.

jetfiremuck

King Mob wrote: »

Lol yea you cracked it.

The biggest conspiracy in the world that involves every scientist even 50+ years later and they accidentally made the lander too small.m
Then you, the clever boy you are figured it out without so much as looking at plans for the lander.
Good job. They would have gotten away with it if it werent for you...

Looks like you could be sold anything........without any effort .

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

The greatest pattern I see across various threads is your arguing in favour of American government whatever the issue at hand.

The posters responding to you in this thread are actually going pretty easy

It can be upped to a normal level of reason and logic: if you can't explain, in detail, with credible evidence, exactly what happened alternatively happened for each moon landing - then, logically, what you say can be dismissed

Again, note the pattern of posters in this thread who think the moon landing was hoaxed

1. It "doesn't seem possible" to them, so they believe it didn't happen
2. They have no evidence to the contrary
3. They can't refute the current evidence
4. Deliberately avoid direct points/questions/logical remarks

5. They don't have any counter-theory, or if they do, it's extremely vague

Cork Boy 53

jetfiremuck wrote: »

OH I forgot to add....look at the size comparison of the lunar lander the size of the astronauts, their gear shielding.......where did they fit the lunar rover fffs...did they put it together like a mecanno set fffs. What weight was that cmon lads

http://www.armaghplanet.com/nasas-lunar-rover-everything-you-need-to-know.html

Larbre34

As I heard it put yesterday by one of the great minds who has worked on space exploration, "having to defend our work to people who dont understand the science is frustrating and sad"

Buzz Aldrin said it all when some balloon of a hoax shill confronted him years ago and asked him to swear on the bible he had walked on the moon. He right hooked him to the head.

namloc1980

mickdw wrote: »

I don't think the maths involved in an IT qualification would be at the highest level but even so, if I wanted to employ someone to carry out a complex task, I'd hire you before the majority of the random population.
To take a simple example, prior to my Engineering Degree, I was 1 of 2 who took higher maths in a class of 60 at secondary school. That simple fact in itself strongly suggests that I would mathematically be ahead of a large portion of the population.

So they didn't have the navigational mathematics in 1969 to reach the moon. So when did people in your view develop this ability or is all Spaceflight fake? Bearing in mind the Soviets landed unmanned vehicles on the moon before Apollo were these faked too? For someone who thinks they have strong mathematics you can't wrap your head around it.

Humans sufficiently understood orbital dynamics to accurately calculate eclipses and transits of Venus hundred of years of years ago. Can you wrap your head around that???

King Mob

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Looks like you could be sold anything........without any effort .

So because I dont accept the insane conspiracy theory youre suggested just on your own uninformed ill-educated opinion on a topic you know nothing about... I'm gullible?
Ok...

Dohnjoe

jetfiremuck wrote: »

OH I forgot to add....look at the size comparison of the lunar lander the size of the astronauts, their gear shielding.......where did they fit the lunar rover fffs

Like this

...did they put it together like a mecanno set fffs.

Yes

What weight was that cmon lads

"The Lunar Roving Vehicle could be folded into a space 5 ft by 20 in (1.5 m by 0.5 m). Unloaded, it weighed 460 lb (209 kg)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_15#Spacecraft

fffs

This stuff takes seconds to look up, the information can be corroborated by multiple credible sources, there is no excuse.

Dohnjoe

Dozens of high quality documentaries available on every aspect of the moon missions, I recommend the below. If posters here are suggesting something else entirely happened, cool, they can provide their information for that. "FFS I just can't believe it" isn't a valid response.

Lunar Rover

Saturn 5

Lunar module

martingriff

914 wrote: »

Not with 1960's tech but yet the Vikings with no tech managed to cross the Atlantic and reach North America

The Egyptians had no tech but managed to build the pyrmaids.

The celts had no tech but managed to build Newgrange.

Humans are capable of some pretty amazing things.

In 1914 submarines were widely used during the first world war, how did we manage that with the tech available in 1914?

I would love you to explain as to why the tech in the 60's couldn't get us to the moon and back?

Is there also a bridge in England I think a suspension bridge that uses no bolts. Some university took it apart and could not but it together without bolts and rivets

tigerboon

mickdw wrote: »

Well at the most basic level, I don't believe they had the ability to accurately navigate the space craft to intercept the moon on it's own path at exactly the right position to then be pulled into moons orbit and land from there. There are just so many things that could go wrong with that. I'd expect much of what they would experience would be unknown / unexpected and it would not be at all strange for them to crash, get lost/not return at all, crash into the moon and be stuck there etc.
On top of all this, they claim a computer crash and that a manual landing was performed. It just doesn't add up.
Are people happy to believe that he could have any piloting experience of how the module would behave in those conditions? The test flight footage from earth is beyond stupid.
So in summary, too many unknowns, navigation difficult to achieve with the accuracy needed- how much ability had they to alter course, timing required to intercept moon in the manner they wanted to, with minimal computing ability.
I just don't see it happening, flawlessly

My uncle worked with a couple of the companies involved in the Apollo project and worked on a couple of the teams in the mid sixties. He worked on the trajectory programme and with a company developing parts for the fuel system for the LEM. These were huge teams from huge companies, not a couple of "rocket engineers" with a spanner and hammer like you seem to think.
You're correct in stating they didn't have the technology in the sixties, but like F1, concorde etc. they developed the technology needed. Just to answer your first point about navigating the LEM into position, for example, they developed the first throttleable engine to be used in space flight. (built by TRW, look up pintle injector based engine). This one supplier alone is a huge company with hundreds of engineers (mechanical not "rocket").
There's obvious reasons designs etc were never released as a lot of the work done on the Apollo programme was done by companies involved in the defense industry.

Wibbs

jetfiremuck wrote: »

So food for thought..
in 2019 Elon musk can barely get a rocket to return standing up on a barge off shore.

Christ the level of sheer ignorance displayed in just this sentence alone... Rockets returning like that is a relatively new concept and SpaceX are one of the few that have succeeded in it. Previously rocket stages were simply discarded in flight after use. The Space shuttle was supposed to be fully reusable to get around this waste but budget cuts hit it.

The Falcon Heavy rocket with 27 engines is the most powerful rocket ever to leave the ground......

No it is not. The Saturn V and the Soviet N1 were more powerful.

where's the engineering drawings/ propellant formulas used in the moon launches?

Eh NASA and other agencies have them all. This is a common notion that they lost or threw away the plans in the 70's. Utter nonsense. Hell, I even have original engineering stuff concerning the Saturn V.

And why not used today.

Because it was extremely wasteful and expensive and not applicable to today's needs.

That Nixon was able to have a phone conversation with the moon on July 21 1969....... Really

It's called a radio set. That thing invented by Marconi in the 1890's.

Where are all the rocket launches documented for all those that travel to and from the iss. YouTube videos on iss stage showing the wires etc. look at the videos and ask is it plausible.

bfa1509

Deagol wrote: »

because any engineer who says the above clearly is either suffering from a mental issue or should never have been able to pass even a basic engineering exam.

King Mob wrote: »

You are now moving the goalposts in a very pathetically obvious way.

namloc1980 wrote: »

This nonsense that you can't wrap your head around therefore it didn't happen, is frankly pathetic.

914 wrote: »

You might want to revisit your career choice.

King Mob wrote: »

You and conspiracy nuts like you just never bother to do basic research or apply critical thinking.

King Mob wrote: »

Then you, the clever boy you are figured it out without so much as looking at plans for the lander.

King Mob wrote: »

So because I dont accept the insane conspiracy theory youre suggested just on your own uninformed ill-educated opinion on a topic you know nothing about... I'm gullible?
Ok...

Ha! This is what I love about you space fanboys. If you are so confident the moonlandings happened then why do you all sound so emotional and insult anyone who questions it?

Timberrrrrrrr

bfa1509 wrote: »

Ha! This is what I love about you space fanboys. If you are so confident the moonlandings happened then why do you all sound so emotional and insult anyone who questions it?

Because the sheer and utter stupidity from conspiracy theorists can be quite frustrating.

King Mob

bfa1509 wrote: »

Ha! This is what I love about you space fanboys. If you are so confident the moonlandings happened then why do you all sound so emotional and insult anyone who questions it?

Notice how you have been unable to address any point leveled at you.
Why is that?
Why do you still cling to your silly conspiracy theory when you know you can't answer basic questions about it?

Seeing sheer uninformed opinion as if it is the equal to actual knowledge is a bit silly and annoying, yea.

SlowBlowin

jetfiremuck wrote: »

So food for thought..
in 2019 Elon musk can barely get a rocket to return standing up on a barge off shore.

I was so focused on your other inaccuracies that I missed this monumental statement.

A private company build a rocket that can land on a ship in the ocean, after putting satellites into orbit, can be reused in short time and you don't find that impressive ?

Is there anything you find impressive (yourself excluded) ?

Dohnjoe

bfa1509 wrote: »

Ha! This is what I love about you space fanboys. If you are so confident the moonlandings happened then why do you all sound so emotional and insult anyone who questions it?

What is a "space fanboy"?

Why are the only arguments for your theories (the ISS isn't manned, moon landings didn't happen) either based on emotion or incredulity?

If you haven't refuted any evidence, haven't presented any alternative theory yourself, at what point do your theories here differ from those who e.g. believe the world is flat?

Why shouldn't other posters be frustrated, you are dodging almost every question, deflecting and using every Alex Jones technique so far.. if not, then can you please answer the questions and address the points in the thread

Here are some are basics:

1. If the ISS isn't manned, then explain the live feed and how many people/countries/governments are involved in your conspiracy (properly, with sound evidence)

2. Choose one of the 6 landings, and explain with sound evidence how it was faked (conspiracy youtube videos don't count)

CoBo55

Overheal wrote: »

This is indeed, totally possible. Telescope can be routinely trained to its orbital path, which is public knowledge. More powerful scopes, better view, but that's just light and optics again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNsCMBKFakk

The speed is the inconsequential part. Yes, it's going bloody fast, but it's also doing so bloody far away. You can similarly burn rubber on a motorway and still comfortably few scenery on the horizon without trouble.

This can also be independently verified.

Near and far, covered by Grover on Sesame Street... Very funny, love Grover.

skerry

I think it's time to stop feeding the troll :rolleyes:

bfa1509

King Mob wrote: »

Notice how you have been unable to address any point leveled at you.
Why is that?
Why do you still cling to your silly conspiracy theory when you know you can't answer basic questions about it?

You think I have the time to go through 150 posts, mostly paragraphs long and prove to you why they aren't real? Why would I focus on the smoke and mirrors of NASA propaganda when there are fundamental rules being broken in broad daylight that prove the whole thing to be a hoax?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What is a "space fanboy"?

Why are the only arguments for your theories (the ISS isn't manned, moon landings didn't happen) either based on emotion or incredulity?

You've had two engineers enter this thread, and rather than hearing what we had to say, you opted to drown us out with insults and undermine our qualifications. I already presented solid, unchallenged calculations (not based on emotion) as to why I believe it is impossible to maneuver the spacesuits in a vacuum.

What could have been a really interesting thread has been rendered a snorefest, swamped out by sheep clutching at straws.

King Mob

bfa1509 wrote: »

You think I have the time to go through 150 posts, mostly paragraphs long and prove to you why they aren't real? Why would I focus on the smoke and mirrors of NASA propaganda when there are fundamental rules being broken in broad daylight that prove the whole thing to be a hoax?

You've been shown these questions several times and you can't answer them.
You know you can't.
We know you can't.

If you can't defend your silly childlike conspiracy theory, why hold onto it?
Why announce that you believe something like that and have yourself filed away with people who believe the world is flat and the holocaust didn't happen and that evolution isn't real?

It's bizarre...

Cheerful Spring2

jetfiremuck wrote: »

So food for thought..
in 2019 Elon musk can barely get a rocket to return standing up on a barge off shore.

The Falcon Heavy rocket with 27 engines is the most powerful rocket ever to leave the ground......where's the engineering drawings/ propellant formulas used in the moon launches? And why not used today.

That Nixon was able to have a phone conversation with the moon on July 21 1969....... Really

Where are all the rocket launches documented for all those that travel to and from the iss. YouTube videos on iss stage showing the wires etc. look at the videos and ask is it plausible.

There were six moon landings, and this would be incredibly costly to fake longterm.More people involved on each separate mission and what would be point of faking six? If was impossible to do, they would have stopped after 1 or 2 and scrapped the project.

Evidence is weak we never went. They are basing it all about shadows on the moon and lack of stars, and there explantations for this. I have not seen clear evidence it would be impossible. The moon is not far from us to get to there. It not like they went to Mars.

Just saying if the dispute is over lack of stars and placing of shadows then its fools errand. Your case is based on nothing.

skerry

bfa1509 wrote: »

You've had two engineers enter this thread, and rather than hearing what we had to say, you opted to drown us out with insults and undermine our qualifications.

And you've have 1 person enter this thread who's educated to PhD level who's worked on experiments which have been flown in the ISS and returned home for analysis but you chose to ignore that also.

Cork Boy 53

bfa1509 wrote: »

What could have been a really interesting thread has been rendered a snorefest, swamped out by sheep clutching at straws.

The irony of this comment by you is delicious.:):)