This documentary might interest you.
I believe you are confusing me with someone else
If we had a thread asking people to write a sentence about arknor then I doubt much of it would be positive
Last edited:
Apollo45
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
This documentary might interest you.
If we had a thread asking people to write a sentence about arknor then I doubt much of it would be positive
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
It makes no sense because as with most of what you post, it's utter rubbish.
There were 5 subsequent moon landings after Apollo 11.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,524
- Location
- ST4
'Have Blue' first flew in '77
And the F-16 first flew in 1974, with an entirely digital flight control system. The first airliner with an autopilot capable of landing was the Trident which first flew back in the 1962.
So yeah, a computer that could do simple calculations and perform basic autopilot control input in a vacuum at that time is clearly impossible.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,741
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
They didn't need a 'computer', it could have been done by pen & paper.
You still haven't answered my question - how did America fool the Russians (and China) and for the 5 landings after?
While you're at it explain the technology that was used to do this.
On the night of the landing 100s & 1000s of Ham Radio Operators aimed their aerials at the Moon to listen to live transmissions and didn't aim them at a desert in Nevada.
How were all these Ham Radio people fooled?
What exactly were they aiming at?
Arknor was in a hot air balloon redirecting signals to them from Nevada. Simples.
Indeed, going to the moon is easier, far fewer variables and external forces to deal with once you get out of the atmosphere. How many calculations per second do you thin it takes to hold a straight line?
Only a couple of hundred MHz can run the flight control systems in the likes of a Typhoon or a Raptor today, which is exponentially more complex. The autopilot on Apollo was nothing more than a glorified calculator.
If you genuinely can't see how that is possible then I suggest you do some reading. Of course, like others have said, I'm quite sure you're trolling.
Only a couple of hundred MHz can run the flight control systems in the likes of a Typhoon or a Raptor today, which is exponentially more complex. The autopilot on Apollo was nothing more than a glorified calculator.
If you genuinely can't see how that is possible then I suggest you do some reading. Of course, like others have said, I'm quite sure you're trolling.
Concorde used a very advanced (for the time!) computer to control the system of ramps in the engine inlet. In a lot of ways making concorde work was harder than the moon landings.
Quote from http://www.concordesst.com/powerplant.html
Last edited:
So they spent the money, built the rockets, launched them, then... what? The astronauts stuck around in orbit then came back?
Then somehow the US government faked signals going out to the moon and back, and faked debris on a landing site on the surface, including mirrors that are still used today for laser rangefinding... All under the eyes of the USSR who would have used the tiniest excuse to cry fake. And got away with it for 45 years without any of the many thousands who would have to be involved in it ever speaking out?
Yeah, right, it didn't happen. Of course.
There is an internally consistent explanation that's non-falsifiable, so I'm surprised that conspiracy believers aren't using it and instead are just repeating blather that's either been repeatedly proven false, contradicts itself or both.
The only plausible explanation for why the USA would develop the ability to do a manned landing and then not do so is that a much more powerful force stopped them.
That force would have to be alien in origin, obviously, since there was no such force on Earth at the time.
The aliens would also be able to force the USSR to go along with it all.
The aliens would also be able to put the reflectors on the moon and fake the videos (which could not have been faked with technology known to humanity at the time).
The aliens would also be able to alter the memories of all the people involved, using the mind-altering technology that all aliens obviously have. You've seen Men In Black, right?
It's easy when you bring aliens into it. Or gods, of course. Same thing in the context of faith - an untestable supernatural explanation for everything.
It's not a useful way to spend resources. Even if NASA had a trillion dollars a year, they could still find more useful ways to spend it. The only point of a manned moon landing program was to demonstrate the ability to do it reliably as a demonstration of superiority. The USSR was talking up its space program as an example of how "communism" (they never were actually communist) was a better way. So the USA could and did counter that idea very strongly with their moon landings.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,741
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Arknor still hasn't replied to my two questions 
Even when you have thought of all the stupid CT nonsense you still have to come back to these questions:
What did the Americans put up there to convince all scientists around the world and all the Ham Radio enthusiasts?
Even when you have thought of all the stupid CT nonsense you still have to come back to these questions:
What did the Americans put up there to convince all scientists around the world and all the Ham Radio enthusiasts?
Actually Dimps, as a radio ham of over thirty years, I'm very interested in what you've said. What were you actually listening to as the comms on the moon were up in the VHF bands where specialised equipment (for the time) would be needed to listen to them, specifically a large dish or horn type antenna! There aren't may reports of amateur radio operators at all who were able to evesdrop on lunar conversations.
I love reading how incredibly stupid people are when trying to explain why we didn't land on the moon. Basing it all on the "powerful as a calculator" argument, hilarious.
Please continue to feed the trolls so I can laugh heartily at their stupidity
Please continue to feed the trolls so I can laugh heartily at their stupidity
The moon isn't a planet.
it started as a joke..... the moon not being on a tilt was supposed to give it away but people kept asking me by name to answer stupid questions.
of course they went to the moon.
It's an incredible feat that some people find hard to believe happened with the technology we had back then.
NASA made it look so easy yet only stayed in low earth orbit since 1972 which just seems pointless and boring, nasa complain about budget but what do they expect? they do nothing exciting nothing to get people talking about exploration and discovery so they are just left on the back burner being boring.
It's almost like they don't want to do any worthwhile missions.
This thread should be called "Apollo almost 45 years wasted since"
That was some quality trolling Arknor. I've read a lot of your posts and always thought of you as well balanced and insightful, but I was taken in at first by this thread. I thought maybe being a conspiracy arse was the skeleton in your closet. Glad to find out it it's not.
If you had a plot of the earths orbit around the sun, the moons orbit about the earth, a star map, a sextant, a decent watch and a slide rule would probably get you most of the way there.
Having a dozen or more scientists amd mathematicians on earth calculating burns and timings made it a lot easier not to crash at the end or miss.
Having a dozen or more scientists amd mathematicians on earth calculating burns and timings made it a lot easier not to crash at the end or miss.