So the moon landing was faked!

orderoftheflame said:
Regardless... Some of the footage of zero g lasts for minutes and longer. The zero mavity part of a parabola lasts for ~25 seconds. You can't just arc for longer and stretch it out for ages... It's a precise thing.
Click to expand...

It's obviously pieced together in the Adobe suite which NASA created in 1946 but kept under wraps.
 
groen said:
With regards to the van allen belt, that was an observation. Why would van allen ruin is reputation by disproving glorious nasa. Most of what I have said is backed up by credible sources, a few things was just my own opinion though. But the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, I am simply saying that I am not convinced of NASA's lies. I don't see how a satellite above 400 miles disproves anything. I was very specific about manned space flight. unless you claim that satellites have people in them, type of bs you get from NASA on a daily basis, to be honest if any one is making it up as they go along it is NASA and their convoluted lies on top of lies on to of more lies. They are so far gone down the lying abyss, that they even believe it themselves at this point.
Click to expand...

This is where you let yourself down. You're not saying that has any base on reality, just what you feel.

The burden of proof is on you to provide the proof it was a hoax. You have failed to source anything as yet that we can review.

I was very specific about manned space flight.
Click to expand...

Carry on with that; what specifically about manned space flight were you being specific about? Apart from the Eddie van Halen belt, which your source has been turned over on, what are the difficulties? The weight? The plumbing for the requisite dishwasher? What tablets did they use? Did they need to pack dishwasher salt?

type of bs you get from NASA on a daily basis
Click to expand...

What else are they lying about? Funny that this fits my quote earlier about conspiracy theorists generally approve of multiple theories. :o

if any one is making it up as they go along it is NASA and their convoluted lies on top of lies on to of more lies. They are so far gone down the lying abyss, that they even believe it themselves at this point.
Click to expand...

You're not actually saying anything at all, are you? What lies? What BS? What? What what what?! It's mad that you continue with literally no substance behind your posts. :p

100+ sad points for me in this thread btw. :o
 
groen said:
Well if there is no risk and all it takes is a bit of tin foil and a some what advanced space suit to protect against the suns unfettered radiation, they why didn't nasa and all other space projects since apollo, from all other countries and private, go more than 400 miles? It is not funding and it is not propulsion limitations. So what is the limiting factor, this is the point the documentary makes with regards to the van allen belt of radiation.
Click to expand...

You concede that the Van Allen belt is not a hurdle now then?

Usefulness? Other than travelling to other celestial bodies, why do we need to go past 400 miles? We don't need satellites, telescopes and space stations to go past 400 miles, which is what the Space shuttle was designed to launch.

The shuttle was pushing it at 385 for fuel when it it launched hubble. Why would NASA create a new vehicle within the lifespan of the shuttle just to go further?
 
groen said:
Well if there is no risk and all it takes is a bit of tin foil and a some what advanced space suit to protect against the suns unfettered radiation, they why didn't nasa and all other space projects since apollo, from all other countries and private, go more than 400 miles? It is not funding and it is not propulsion limitations. So what is the limiting factor, this is the point the documentary makes with regards to the van allen belt of radiation.
Click to expand...
.

You do know that mars is hugely further than the moon don't you? Unmanned missions tend to take about 9 months to get there. As its the next closest bit of rock and visiting an empty bit of space would be a bit pointless that would be the next point to aim for. Massively more expensive and difficult though which is why only unmanned probes have been.
 
You guys try and debunk my theory about how they faked the moon clips and now you are admitting that nasa has used that method of training since the 50s. So which is it? All the clips of fake moon trips have the same visual components, you have the fake internal video usually with a hand held, these are faked in the zero g training planes, they literally put the replica command module up in the plane with the crappy hand held and did the zero g, clips. Then they do a model for the landing shots and similar, then they have the full studio replica of the moon services. They then take all these components and cut them together with the audio track on top that is basically just voice audio.
 
groen said:
With regards to the van allen belt, that was an observation. Why would van allen ruin is reputation by disproving glorious nasa. Most of what I have said is backed up by credible sources, a few things was just my own opinion though. But the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, I am simply saying that I am not convinced of NASA's lies. I don't see how a satellite above 400 miles disproves anything. I was very specific about manned space flight. unless you claim that satellites have people in them, type of bs you get from NASA on a daily basis, to be honest if any one is making it up as they go along it is NASA and their convoluted lies on top of lies on to of more lies. They are so far gone down the lying abyss, that they even believe it themselves at this point.
Click to expand...

Van Allen's discovery of the belts was important but he said it may not be possible to travel through them, the scientists of the time also didnt know whether the lunar module would sink into the moon as they didnt know how deep the dust was going to be, they had the astronauts do horrific tests, they were kept in isolation for the first two moon landings till they understood that there was no threat from alien bugs, a multitude of things were not known until they were known by carrying out the missions.

Even as a most basic premise they could have just gone to the moon with the first rocket as a fake, no one knew at the time the intricacy of trying things out but they tested apollo in earth orbit on 7, 8 was supposed to be the test of the lunar module in earth orbit but it wasnt ready so 8 and 9 got switched and 8 went to the moon, 9 trialed the LM in earth orbit then 10 trialed it in the moon orbit. While they sped things up as fast as possible this was always risk vs reward, this is of course not to mention any of the gemini missions which were also key to apollo, docking in space, EVA's and a host of other things that they tried out (2 week flights for example).

Its highly offensive to think that the guys that died working for Nasa were all hoaxed, were they bumped off? What would be the reasoning for it if they were? Was that a cover up because they were about to blow the whistle? All these things can be twisted whatever you want but even reading a simple book on the space program would let you understand the magnitude off the whole program and how many people and contractors it entailed, as I said before its an affront to the pioneers who risked and in some cases lost their lives to give these nonsensical conspiracy theories even a minute of consideration, let alone bang on about it for years only for you to bow out of every discussion because you cant handle basic facts about space and physics that you learn in school.
 
groen said:
You guys try and debunk my theory about how they faked the moon clips and now you are admitting that nasa has used that method of training since the 50s. So which is it? All the clips of fake moon trips have the same visual components, you have the fake internal video usually with a hand held, these are faked in the zero g training planes, they literally put the replica command module up in the plane with the crappy hand held and did the zero g, clips. Then they do a model for the landing shots and similar, then they have the full studio replica of the moon services. They then take all these components and cut them together with the audio track on top that is basically just voice audio.
Click to expand...

What? Everyone knows NASA trained astronauts in the vomit comet. It's not exactly one of their "MEGA LIEZ".

You ignore the point. How did NASA use 25 second bursts in a reduced mavity plane to fake continuous several minute long uninterrupted videos of astronauts in zero mavity.
 
groen said:
You guys try and debunk my theory about how they faked the moon clips and now you are admitting that nasa has used that method of training since the 50s. So which is it? All the clips of fake moon trips have the same visual components, you have the fake internal video usually with a hand held, these are faked in the zero g training planes, they literally put the replica command module up in the plane with the crappy hand held and did the zero g, clips. Then they do a model for the landing shots and similar, then they have the full studio replica of the moon services. They then take all these components and cut them together with the audio track on top that is basically just voice audio.
Click to expand...

You cant debunk something that is ludicrous fabrication.
 
groen said:
You guys try and debunk my theory about how they faked the moon clips and now you are admitting that nasa has used that method of training since the 50s. So which is it? All the clips of fake moon trips have the same visual components, you have the fake internal video usually with a hand held, these are faked in the zero g training planes, they literally put the replica command module up in the plane with the crappy hand held and did the zero g, clips. Then they do a model for the landing shots and similar, then they have the full studio replica of the moon services. They then take all these components and cut them together with the audio track on top that is basically just voice audio.
Click to expand...

Someone needs more RAM. Cannot compute everything at once.

The point is that you can get zero g, but only for a small time. Hell, if they could get zero g for hours in a plane, the altitude they'd need to achieve the effect they'd surely just have chucked the astronauts in the back of the plane and aimed for the moon?

Have you thought actually in depth about how those zero-g planes work? They climb, they drop. As they drop, those inside drop at the same rate as the plane, so it effectively feels like they are weightless, but it's just relative to the confines of the plane. They can only do it for so long as the planes can only go so high and they're coming down at a reasonably rapid rate.

And the second point after that is that because of the transmission etc., it was impossible to string together something pre-recorded without someone immediately calling it out.

But I guess you didn't read this far. :o
 
groen said:
You guys try and debunk my theory about how they faked the moon clips and now you are admitting that nasa has used that method of training since the 50s. So which is it?
Click to expand...

It's both quite obviously!
You can't film a fake moon landing in a vomit comet, (25s zero G at a time in a plane fuselage performing some pretty extreme manouvres) but it's one of the only ways you can train to work in zero G. What's hard to understand about that?
 
orderoftheflame said:
What? Everyone knows NASA trained astronauts in the vomit comet. It's not exactly one of their "MEGA LIEZ".

You ignore the point. How did NASA use 25 second bursts in a reduced mavity plane to fake continuous several minute long uninterrupted videos of astronauts in zero mavity.
Click to expand...

They used the ISS, or possibly MIR ;)
 
Blue160 said:
.

You do know that mars is hugely further than the moon don't you? Unmanned missions tend to take about 9 months to get there. As its the next closest bit of rock and visiting an empty bit of space would be a bit pointless that would be the next point to aim for. Massively more expensive and difficult though which is why only unmanned probes have been.
Click to expand...

So wait. Let me get this straight. Basically apollo went to the moon 6 times. But since then, meh what's the point of even leaving the atmosphere? :rolleyes:
 
groen said:
So wait. Let me get this straight. Basically apollo went to the moon 6 times. But since then, meh what's the point of even leaving the atmosphere? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes basically. It's really expensive to send people into space, so when they'd achieved what they set out to do they stopped. Mars is too difficult for now, and there's no compelling scientific reason to go back to the moon so sadly that's it for now. The international space station is still doing its thing though.
 
groen said:
So wait. Let me get this straight. Basically apollo went to the moon 6 times. But since then, meh what's the point of even leaving the atmosphere? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How about the ISS and MIR space stations?
All the probes sent throughout our solar system, and beyond?

Manned space flights to the moon don't have the political importance they once had, so they don't get the financial backing to take place.
We kinda know all we need to know about the moon, the next important manned space flight will be to Mars so long as it is given the finance and all the technical difficulties associated with that can be overcome.

The ISS is an amazing technical achievement, testament to the international co-operation which should be present in future space missions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom