So the moon landing was faked!


Apollo 14 was especially crap. Actually they were all crap, amateur hour at the fake moon landing studio incorporated. Looks like a bad composite image done by putting a spinning fake moon in front of a static camera that is visually obstructed by a fake lunar lander sitting in a studio.

By modern standards these fakes videos are pitifully pathetic.
 
Glaucus said:
No, know where in taht statement does it say the explosive charges provides the power.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_PressKit.pdf
photojan21135239.jpg
Click to expand...

May I suggest you read some of the astronauts autobiographies where it goes into detail about the take off procedure, Gene Cernan and Buzz Aldrins I think detail it best although i am sure it will be online detailing the procedure if you google it too.
 
groen said:

Apollo 14 was especially crap. Actually they were all crap, amateur hour at the fake moon landing studio incorporated. Looks like a bad composite image done by putting a spinning fake moon in front of a static camera that is visually obstructed by a fake lunar lander sitting in a studio.

By modern standards these fakes videos are pitifully pathetic.
Click to expand...

What?

What part of that video screams "fake" to you. Do you have a real moon landing to compare it to so you can confirm that this video is a fake?
 
Did you watch it? There was no turbulence and there was no engine sounds the thing floated down like a feather. It was totally unbelievable from the landing, to the walking about, to the take off from the moon, to the magical 240000 mile return journey.
 
Metalface Mark said:
May I suggest you read some of the astronauts autobiographies where it goes into detail about the take off procedure, Gene Cernan and Buzz Aldrins I think detail it best although i am sure it will be online detailing the procedure if you google it too.
Click to expand...

Please find as I can't find them, would be interesting to read, but that's nasal own guide which says its under power. And everything I can find says it was engine lift off.

http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-module-everything-you-need-to-know.html
Dressed in their spacesuits, the astronauts fired the small, simple but powerful ascent engine under their cabin and their tiny spacecraft blasted off, using the Descent Stage as a launch pad.Seven minutes later they would be in lunar orbit awaiting the rendezvous with the CSM.
Click to expand...

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/LEC1/trip.html
With our explorations over and a good rest behind us, the focus shifted to going back into orbit for a rendezvous with Ron. Preparations included review of seemingly endless contingency procedures to be used in case the normal, computer driven liftoff, ascent, and rendezvous sequences failed. So many engineering precautions had been designed into the Challenger, however, that little likelihood existed that we would be stranded on the moon. Indeed, I don't think any Apollo crew seriously contemplated what they would do in that eventuality. For example, among the hundreds of parts making up the ascent engine, only the exit nozzle and the massive fuel and oxidizer injector ring had no matching pair or backup component (No one could figure out a way these parts could fail.) As a last resort, we could even wire the descent batteries to the circuit breakers controlling the ascent engine fuel and oxidizer valves and force the valves open. As these pressurized liquids react on contact as they mix in the engine, we would be on our way.

We barely noticed the 1/2 G acceleration of liftoff and the slight oscillation during ascent, partly because at the instant of ignition, the uplink communications turned into raw static. Later, we found out that a mix-up on a transfer between Earth transmitting stations caused the problem. As we flew back into orbit on a direct rendezvous path towards Ron in the America, I spent the first few minutes trying to restore Challenger's communications while Gene monitored the guidance systems and yelled at me to "get the comm back!" (It turns out that nothing I could do would have helped. Mission Control finally restored communications on their own.)
Click to expand...

http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0509011
The next day, Dec. 14, Cernan and Schmitt got ready to depart. At 4:56 p.m., Cernan pressed the ignition button, the LM's ascent engine fired, and they vaulted from the surface, heading into orbit. After linking up with Evans, they remained in lunar orbit for two more days to finish Apollo's exploration of the moon. After a behind-the-moon transearth injection burn of the rocket engine hurled them out of lunar orbit, on the return trip, Evans did a spacewalk to retrieve the film and experiments from his days in orbit.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
groen said:
Did you watch it? There was no turbulence and there was no engine sounds the thing floated down like a feather. It was totally unbelievable from the landing, to the walking about, to the take off from the moon, to the magical 240000 mile return journey.
Click to expand...
That'd be the turbulence from the air in the vacuum, would it? The same vacuum that transports sound so well.
 
groen said:
Bill Kaysing said that Apollo was a fake back in 60s before they even went to the moon, no one listened.

Here is his tribute website, http://www.billkaysing.com/
Click to expand...

That would be because Bill Kaysing was utterly wrong in just about everything he said. He was never trained as an engineer or as a scientist, but claimed that NASA lacked the technical expertise to get to the Moon. He was one of the hoax believers who kept banging the drum about stars not being visible in photographs long after that limitation in photography had been explained patiently in words of one syllable to anyone prepared to actually listen.

He also claimed that the Apollo 1 fire and the Challenger explosion were deliberate acts by NASA to silence astronauts who were about to reveal the 'truth', which I guess says it all about just how wrong in the head he was. The world is a much more intelligent place without him.
 
groen said:
Did you watch it? There was no turbulence and there was no engine sounds the thing floated down like a feather. It was totally unbelievable from the landing, to the walking about, to the take off from the moon, to the magical 240000 mile return journey.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, if that's where we're starting from their 240,000 mile journey will seem like nothing.

They're in the vacuum of space. What turbulence were you expecting? Some monster blowing at them from 20 feet away?
 
All the landing shots were nothing more than models and composite images cut with shots of them in high orbit faking the zero mavity. They put the lunar lander up in a cargo plane and made a studio in it, that is how they faked the zero mavity shots in the command module. When the rockets lifted off they were completely empty, the astonauts then went up in a plane where they dropped the command module by parachute from a cargo plane, pretending for it to have gone through re-entry.

The videos were very easy to fake, simple models, some shots of fake mavity and some nasa command center shots, their signal was faked so most of the people in nasa command center actually thought they were on the moon, lol. But realy they were just sitting in a studio faking the audio broadcast.
 
groen said:
Did you watch it? There was no turbulence and there was no engine sounds the thing floated down like a feather.
Click to expand...

You know space?, vacuum?, ahhhhh screw it, how do you manage to get dressed in the morning without an army of carers?, there's the real mystery!.
 
groen said:
Did you watch it? There was no turbulence and there was no engine sounds the thing floated down like a feather. It was totally unbelievable from the landing, to the walking about, to the take off from the moon, to the magical 240000 mile return journey.
Click to expand...


lol - you're joking right?? nobody can be that stupid.
 
aardvark said:
lol - you're joking right?? nobody can be that stupid.
Click to expand...

Oh, but he is. He also thinks you need the rocket on full power in space to move anywhere.

Those satellites that deliver our communication and media must have huge fuel tanks, to fly around the earth for decades.
 
groen said:
Did you watch it? There was no turbulence and there was no engine sounds the thing floated down like a feather.
Click to expand...

Turbulence is caused by air, and there isn't any on the moon.

Rocket noise is caused by the shearing effect between the rocket exhaust and the air. There is no air on the moon!

If there was sound and turbulence in that video it would be absolute proof it had been faked.

I think you've just displayed the most breathtaking lack of knowledge or reasoning yet on this thread, which is saying quite a lot.
 
groen said:
All the landing shots were nothing more than models and composite images cut with shots of them in high orbit faking the zero mavity. They put the lunar lander up in a cargo plane and made a studio in it, that is how they faked the zero mavity shots in the command module. When the rockets lifted off they were completely empty, the astonauts then went up in a plane where they dropped the command module by parachute from a cargo plane, pretending for it to have gone through re-entry.

The videos were very easy to fake, simple models, some shots of fake mavity and some nasa command center shots, their signal was faked so most of the people in nasa command center actually thought they were on the moon, lol. But realy they were just sitting in a studio faking the audio broadcast.
Click to expand...

Rebut our statements.

  • Why would their be turbulence?
  • Why would you hear the engines?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom