Google backs private Moon landing

[karlos]

TmcMistress i assume you are a Yanker?
Because the whole world and his dog knows 100% that nobody has ever gone to the moon.
Please try and debunk Bart Sibrel's video above.

[TmcMistress]

I'm assuming you've actually got polls and stats to back up that "whole world and his dog" claim...

And yes, I am a "yank". What that has to do with anything, outside of a deep, unending shame of my own country, I'm not sure.

[TmcMistress]

Oh dear gods, is that A Funny Thing Happened...? lol! Nice try, put something up that actually has some credibility. It was already debunked by Lunar Legacy, and what I've posted in this thread.

[karlos]

Hey i like Americans, but you do realise that you live in a brainwashed society. For you the moon landings were a symbol of national pride and getting one over on the Ruskies.
But the reality is nobody walked on the moon, drove a car around, stayed for 3 days and came back.
It is all a load of old cobblers.

Do you know that the moon is at times over 200 centigrade and at other times minus 200 centigrade?
Do you honestly believe a human can survive in those extremes and also withstand the direct solar radiation and cosmic radiation?
Please look at the lander, it is made of aluminium foil. Look at their suits if it is true that the suits are ok why dont they use the same suits to go into 3 Mile Island or even polar expeditions or cross sahara walks?

You cannot deny all the photos and video footage is faked. Whether you believe they went to the moon or not you must agree the pictures are made on earth. Look at the footprints for example, zero gravity, no moisture means no footprints.

How does a lander land with no stablisers and no blast crater?

[TmcMistress]

[telecasterisation]

Well, I had no idea this thread was still active. I hadn't checked it after my last post some time ago.

I particularly like TmcMistress' reference to 'common sense' as a source of reference to space travel. The concept that human beings universally share some form of sagacity that allows them to 'know' the impact of moving between planets and their natural satellites is quite astonishing.

Also liked the earthly comparisons used to make points about 'proof' and space travel.

[TmcMistress]

telecast, are you actually going to contribute anything, or what? This lack of anything from you but not-so-finely-honed rhetoric is getting tiresome.

You know, I'm right there with there being movement 'behind the scenes', so to speak. I do think that there was a larger conspiracy on 9/11 and 7/7. But...

For fuck's sake, I can see why critics get annoyed as hell with some of you people. You either keep saying the same nonsense over and over, or you disappear from the conversation.

So I will ask, one more time. Do you have ANY verifiable proof that the moon landings were faked? Will you stay in the conversation when I post something to show you that maybe, just maybe, are wrong?

You are no less sheep for believing every conspiracy theory than toeing the official line every time.

[karlos]

It is physically impossible for that saturn 5 rocket to have gone to the moon without enough fuel, without enough shielding and without computer aided guidence.
It circled the moon landed the lander whilst the orbiter kept orbiting.
Then the lander took off and redocked with the orbiter and together thrusted back to earth.
now think about it, EVEN if there was enough fuel to make it too the moon, which there wasnt, how on earth did the orbiter make it back.
when asked the astrozeros said the orbiter had HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS which powered it's return.
So how much do you think they weighed, how come they are not in use today to powere todays aircraft or motor cars? and why is this technology still not even accepted by mainstream scientists?
250,000 miles there and another 250,000 back and also thrusters and correction rockets.
The payload of the lunar rover.
Oxygen tanks for the whole trip for 3 people.
How come we didnt carry on making the trip for the last 35 years if it was so easy in 1969?

WAKE Up TMC Mistress, i did and others have, you know it makes sense.
You woke up to 911 and 7/7.
But there are many lies still hidden to you like the moon landings.

[telecasterisation]

[TmcMistress]

*sigh*

[TmcMistress]

[telecasterisation]

TmcMistress wrote;

[TmcMistress]

[karlos]

[telecasterisation]

TmcMistress wrote;

[conspiracy analyst]

Newsnight just ran a story on the moon landings.
They admitted it was all to do with national pride for the Yanks and also admitted that these landing allegedly happened between 1969 and 1972.
During the Vietnam war. They then showed clippings of Bush in 2004 after having showed Kennedy in the 1960's prattling on about going into space.

They then related everything to a GPS in your car. They did admit the Russians never made it there...

I did like the video clips they showed. The US flag was waving about on the moon from the non-existent air.

They drove a moon buggy at speed which didn't take off presumably because of the non-existent gravity.

Got to give it to the Yanks though. They excel in marketing gimmicks.

[TmcMistress]

Telecasteration, there's nothing even there for me to answer. I give up, unless you can provide anything of any substance. Nice try on making a crack about me being from the US though. Completely pointless, but I've come to expect that. I point out several different quotes from you during the course of this thread that show a decided slant to your opinion vis a vis moon hoaxery, and the best you can do is "they don't express my views, merely pose questions"?? Please. Try that with someone considerably more gullible. The best you seem to have is dancing about the semantics of 'arguing' vs 'debating'.

CA - The flag was moving because the astronauts were moving it into position. No air = no friction. However, if you actually watch the video of the moon landing, you'll see that the flag maintains its position after they stop messing with it.

And anyway, besides all that... the idea that the flag moving proves they filmed it on an indoor set is about the most ridiculous thing I've heard in quite some time. I somehow doubt these guys went to the trouble of setting the whole thing up and then thought "Hey, let's set this great big fan off to the side! No, no, don't turn it on! .... Damn, do we film the whole thing over again?"

I'm done with this topic. I feel like I've been banging my head against a metaphorical wall so often in this that I'm about to start banging it against a literal one.

[telecasterisation]

[karlos]

The footage of the flag fluttering in the breeze is interesting. Firstly, how do you make something stand up in low gravity dust with no moisture to bind in together. Make a hole int moonrock? What if they pricked their spacesuit? Today planting a flag would be deemed hazardous. Why would the flag appear visible when the sun is not facing it. How would the flag survive the 200 centigrade temperature what was it made of? And why would they carry such an obviously useless item 250,000 miles? do you realsie how much EXTRA fuel it would take to carry that flag, pole, and mallet to the moon?

They were on the moon for 3 days, why do we only have a few minutes of footage in total?
Where is the footage from the orbiter which must have been mapping the surface and the dark side of the moon while the two were joyriding on the surface.

The footage was shot in a studio with aircon and that is what caused the flutter. alot of mistakes were made which would not happen today. We have much better CGI and blue screens and if a moon landing were undertaken today the footage would certainly be more convincing.
But the reason they dont do it is they would need to jam all the chinese and russian radars and somehow other countries too. They cant do it thats why we didnt go back.

A guy once made a very good comment.
Do you honestly believe we actually spent 20 million on a toilet and 100 million on a car?

Do you know how much a battery operated car would have weighed back in 1969? Today it still weighs a great deal look at a toyota prius so in 1969?

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

$130 billion spent - what experiments did they perform?
or were they just tourists

[conspiracy analyst]

[conspiracy analyst]

[chek]

The Million Dollar Space Pen
Status: Urban Legend
Dwayne Day has an interesting article in Space Review about the urban legend of the Million Dollar Space Pen. I'm sure you've heard the legend before. It's the one in which NASA pays a million dollars to develop a pen that will write in space. The Russians, meanwhile, being a bit more practical and budget-conscious, just use a pencil for their space missions.

The truth is that the space pen was independently developed in the mid-1960s by Paul Fisher of the Fisher Pen Company. He did it completely on his own, without prompting by NASA and without NASA money. It turned out to be a good pen, and NASA later started to use it. But they paid around $2 a piece for them. Not $1 million. Day notes that:

"The Million Dollar Space Pen Myth is just that, a myth. The pens never cost a lot of money and were not developed by wasteful bureaucrats or overactive NASA engineers. The real story of the Space Pen is less interesting than the myth, but in many ways more inspiring. It is not a story of NASA bureaucrats versus simplistic Russians, but a story of a clever capitalist who built a superior product and conducted some innovative marketing. That story, however, is a little harder to sell to a public that believes what it wants to believe."

I know that you can still buy space pens. I saw them for sale a few months ago at Restoration Hardware.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/4140/

I can't believe that people who believe themselves to be seriously investigating 911 allow themselves to fall for such lo-grade easily debunked propaganda.

[telecasterisation]

[karlos]

Actually once we have got to the moon the weight becomes less important. Getting there.
you know that carrying a pound of ballast into space costs millions. So every extra pound carried means more fuel required and more expense. A couple of batteries like that in 1969 would have weighed alot. More than a man can carry. So it would have needed many tonnes of fuel EXTRA to get the batteries to the moon. Dont forget all this payload took off from earth surface.
Now just compare payloads. Today the shuttle carries a smaller payload into earth orbit than than the lunar mission?
Please check this for me.
But i would have said that in 1969 carrying a car, batteries, fuel cells, a flag and pole, cameras, suits, food, oxygen, 3 people and plenty of old fashioned 1969 equipment which was heavy bulky and unreliable.
So i maintain, there was not even a fraction of the fuel required.
None of the astrozeros describe toilet or sleeping arangements or even eating. On the moons surface did they walk out of an airlock and then the module had to repressurise?
Because there appears to have been no description of airlocks, feeding, *, pissing, while on the moons surface.
I guess they put a cork in it?
I know today it gets recycled and they drink the water over and over again but that was not the case in 1969.

[telecasterisation]

[chek]

[karlos]

[TmcMistress]

[karlos]

NASA clearly state that the Saturn V can carry 118,000 kg to low earth orbit which is 150 miles away or 47,000 kg towards the moon which is 250,000 away.
Surely this defies the laws of physics?

I am happy to debunk all NASA evidence/propaganda

Next question is apart from the moon shots no spacecraft has ever been designed to return home. How EXACTLY can they claim that the lunar orbiter which had a very small size, had hydrogen fuel cells a technology that even today is not reliable, had sufficient power to thrust it 250,000 miles back.

I, as the previous poster claimed, do freely admit that i write exactly what comes into my mind. What else did he think?

What comes into my mind is NASA expect us to believe that a car with five passengers can drive 150 miles uphill on a full tank, yet carrying two passengers the same car with the same fuel tank can travel 250,000 miles. Then they release a hydrogen battery powered remote control car and travel back the 250,000 miles downhill.
It really is incomprehenseable.
I suggest that the Saturn V carrying a smaller payload would have simply been able to thrust the payload into HIGH earth orbit say 250 -300 miles up.Which as far as i know nobody has ever done.

Why do you think the Soviets despite their lead in the sapace race never went to the moon?
The USSR which had astronaughts in space for long periods, had a space station, had much more reliable rockets that even the USA uses them to launch many of its satelites.
If it was possible they would have gone and done it.
But it is not possible.
You would need several Saturn V stapped together.

[chek]