I found this interesting but I wonder if his state of mind is lacking because of a possible malady?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uluUQXiji4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uluUQXiji4)
I think he just misspoke and if he wanted us to know we didn't go he would have been more clear.
He'd be like "We didn't go. We ain't going back because we were never there" as opposed to what he said in the video, which was ambiguous.
I'm glad he's still with us.
I think his answer was badly structured, he says "we didn't do it" but then talks about "keep doing something" and "we need to know why something stopped in the past", both giving the idea that they did go to the Moon.
Watching the whole video shows that all his answers suffer from that bad structuring, he starts by saying something and then it sounds like he's talking about something else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4UP6nRMuGs
Quote from: ArMaP on July 26, 2018, 09:33:26 PM
I think his answer was badly structured, he says "we didn't do it" but then talks about "keep doing something" and "we need to know why something stopped in the past", both giving the idea that they did go to the Moon.
Watching the whole video shows that all his answers suffer from that bad structuring, he starts by saying something and then it sounds like he's talking about something else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4UP6nRMuGs
You could be right. It sure had me confused.
Quote from: spacemaverick on July 26, 2018, 08:21:17 PM
I found this interesting but I wonder if his state of mind is lacking because of a possible malady?
I don't think it's severe, but to me his responses do imply minor senility. The pace of the speech, and the halting between words at times.
I should make clear that this in no way diminishes his value as an individual, however. Age is a tragedy, and it occurs to all of us. The greatness of some, such as him, magnify said tragic element when it occurs. I remember a friend telling me that when Bob Kane, the creator of Batman died, despite the fact that it was of natural causes, some still regarded him as a martyr. Some people contribute sufficiently in their lives, that whenever they go, it can be difficult for the rest of us to understand how we will continue without them.
Buzz Aldrin's ex-manager claims she was defamed in family lawsuit(https://cdn-04.independent.ie/world-news/article37051518.ece/82e9c/AUTOCROP/w620/ipanews_8902fc2b-4483-49d1-8172-fa169c1e9e97_1)
QuoteChristina Korp said people had sought to drive a wedge between the Apollo 11 astronaut, his children and herself.
The former business manager for Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin said she is being unfairly defamed in a lawsuit accusing her and two of his children of misusing his credit cards and slandering him.
Christina Korp also blamed people who began to "exert undue influence" on Mr Aldrin. She said in a tweet that they drove a wedge between the former astronaut, his children and herself.
She told ABC's Good Morning America she is saddened by this.
QuoteThe lawsuit, filed earlier this month in a Florida state court, came a week after Mr Aldrin's children Andrew and Janice filed a petition claiming he suffers from memory loss, delusions, paranoia and confusion.
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/buzz-aldrins-exmanager-claims-she-was-defamed-in-family-lawsuit-37051520.html
So... if he comes out and says: "We didn't go to the moon..." they will declare him insane so they can protect their secret :D
Buzz Aldrin family feud intensifies as ex-astronaut sues two of his childrenLawsuit alleges elder exploitation, fraud and slander
Second man to walk on moon, 88, also sues business partner
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b781647e76b6bc4739a7d05cc474f77169ca1bf7/0_64_2252_1351/master/2252.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=ab5f9154aa24be871a5d0323ad3d73c3)
Buzz Aldrin accuses his son Andrew and daughter Janice of using his private company and foundation to enrich themselves but they suggest Aldrin himself is being manipulated. Photograph: Anthony Devlin/PA
Buzz Aldrin is suing two of his children and a business partner for elder exploitation and fraud while accusing them of "slander" for suggesting the 88-year-old Aldrin has dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
QuoteAldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, claims that his son Andrew and daughter Janice, who oversee both a private company and a non-profit in Aldrin's name, have been using his legacy along with company funds "for their own self-dealing and enrichment". According to the suit filed in Florida, Andrew has pilfered nearly half a million dollars from his father's personal account in the last two years.
Aldrin's adult children deny the allegations and in a statement said they were "deeply disappointed and saddened by the unjustified lawsuit that has been brought against us individually and against the foundation that we have built together as a family to carry on Dad's legacy for generations to come".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/25/buzz-aldrin-family-feud-intensifies-as-ex-astronaut-sues-two-of-his-children
I've never felt the moon landing hoax idea could survive Occam's Razor, personally; although given the degree that I used to see pseudoskeptics invoke Occam's Razor to defend their own arguments, I grew to detest the phrase at one point. Still, I think it genuinely applies here.
What I mean is, the hoax just seems like far too much work to go to, and to place the government at far too great a risk if it was discovered. NASA's credibility would never recover if they were caught having done something like that.
I think they did go to the Moon. I also think that the period between 1960 and 1990 was a better time than the current one in more or less general terms; there was more integrity, and so people were able to do bigger and better things. That is the real reason why no one has gone back to the Moon; because America as an empire is in decline now, and space exploration is something that only happens when a civilisation is at its' peak, both economically and spiritually.
Occam's Razor has been so abused it is dull and rusted now :P It also NEVER allowed for out of the box thinking
I have always known we went to the moon Just NOT with Apollo. There is NO WAY those tin can mock up cardboard things were space worthy :P
So I will repost this from the Apollo Reality.. now use your Occam's Razor and explain to me how this is space worthy :PThe Tin Can that went to the Moon?So I have some questions... This Lunar Lander looks like a tin can. Now I have heard John talk about this thing and why it couldn't have possibly made the trip... and we will look at John's stuff in the thread... but Sam Colby has found some interesting pictures direct from NASA that I have never seen before and quite frankly look to me like there is NO WAY that thing had people in it in space. :o
By Sam Colby
nasascam@yahoo.com (http://mailto:nasascam@yahoo.com)(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0ac86e00.jpg)
QuoteThis photograph was taken inside building No 5 at Johnson Space Center.
It shows astroNOTS sorting over disused metal cabinets, and other junk paraphernalia from which to build a LM for fake photographs. Note the octagonal shaped box left of center, which was used to build the model LM.
Now I want you all to look VERY CLOSELY at the metal work on this contraption and explain to me HOW this thing is space worthy? :o
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0a985c20.jpg)
QuoteThe front end of this LM appears to have undergone some sort of bashing with a sledgehammer or other, well it's only a cardboard model innit, set against a fake backdrop of the Moon surface.
I only hope the astroNOTS were wearing their hard hats when the battering took place.
Okay so WTF? And before you say "Its a FAKE" here is the original in high resolution from NASA
(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/hires/as16-122-19533.jpg) (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/hires/as16-122-19533.jpg)
NASA AS16-122-19533 Full Size (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/hires/as16-122-19533.jpg)QuoteAS16-122-19533 (23 April 1972) --- The ascent stage of the Apollo 16 Lunar Module (LM) approaches the Command and Service Modules (CSM) during rendezvous, with a contrasting background of darkness and the moon's Sea of Fertility (Mare Fecundatatis). Taken from the CSM, the photo shows the aft side of the LM during a yaw maneuver. Note the buckled thermal panels. Messier and Messier A (right center) are among the most readily identifiable features on the surface below. While astronauts John W. Young, commander; and Charles M. Duke Jr., lunar module pilot; descended in the Apollo 16 LM "Orion" to explore the Descartes highlands landing site on the moon, astronaut Thomas K. Mattingly II, command module pilot, remained with the CSM "Casper" in lunar orbit.
NASA AS16-122-19533 (23 April 1972) (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/html/as16-122-19533.html)
NASA acknowledges the buckled panels... with a brief note. Below is a close up of the twisted and buckled plates.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_001.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_003.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_002.png)
And then there is THIS.... from Lunar and Planetary Institute they show AS16-122-19533 to look like this before NASA 'color didling to make the moon GRAY again
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/browse/AS16/122/19533.jpg)
QuoteThe photo below is to ridiculous for words. NASA claim this is the actual Apollo 16 Lunar Module on the Moon. Look at all that gold foil around the base, and why is that gold foil not seen in the photo of Apollo 11 LM, after all they were of the same design. I would like to know how they got the Rover out without tearing this gold foil. In addition to the gold foil there is also some sought of black fabric draped just anywhere. What a mess, moreover what a joke. Look at side of LM. It's made up of sheets of thin metal pop riveted together, or maybe cardboard held together with double sided tape. Even the joints are not seated flat, but buckle out in all directions. The under side looks like corrugated sheet, and even that does not mate correctly with the vertical panels. If this is top quality engineering for such an important mission, then I'm a banana. Can't you PAN's see that this is a quick knock-up job, taken in a studio here on Earth, to satisfy gullible people like yourselves, it could not have landed on Moon. Incidentally Grumman built a life size LM in cardboard, I think this is it.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0ad208c0.jpg)
QuoteIn the final picture shown below we take a closer look at this supposedly high quality work from Grumman Engineering, and can see just what a botch job that made of it. NASA inform us that this piece of junk cost $350,000,000, (over $25 billion at todays prices). Look at the angle strip on corner edges, they cannot even get the beading strip angle correct, and have left it jutting out. I don't think NASA is taking the p**s, I know they are. It's a joke, because I have seen better quality work from kindergarten kids building a stage prop for pantomime. Lets face it the whole Apollo project was a pantomime and the Apollo astronauts were nothing more than clowns, but it beggars belief that there are still millions of people around the globe who actually believe the garbage put out by NASA. I find it somewhat scary to think that there are so many people in the world who are completely out of touch with reality. Blame the CIA, after all they saw that TV could be used to brainwash the media, and boy did they take full advantage of it.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0b1ac890.jpg)
By Sam Colby
nasascam@yahoo.com (http://mailto:nasascam@yahoo.com)APOLLO REALITY (http://apolloreality.bravehost.com/)Wow... even the thruster housing is all buckled... How can this be?
This sound file is labeled Duke.. has anyone heard it before and who is 'Duke'? You have anything John?
WAV AUDIO FILE (http://apolloreality2.bravehost.com/index_files/DUKE%20CRAZY.wav)
Quote from: zorgon on July 27, 2018, 12:28:51 PM
So I will repost this from the Apollo Reality.. now use your Occam's Razor and explain to me how this is space worthy :P
You won't get any argument from me about how NASA's (public, at least) craft are rubbish, Zorgon. I've thought that for a long time, and it's the reason why I don't think they have any business trying to send people to Mars, if that is the quality of equipment they use. However, while I won't claim to be nearly as knowledgeable on the subject as you, I've also heard online whispers about the strange and magical things that have possibly been invented under Groom Lake.
So you're probably right. It makes sense that if a real Moon landing did occur, and there was secret stuff which was better than what NASA publically had, (which I feel pretty much certain there would be, given the other things I've seen) they would not publically disclose the use of that craft in whatever information they did release about the landing.
Looking at the pictures of the twisted and buckled plates on the Nasa Space Craft.. if they are for real...
One question is what caused that ?
When the Apollo crafts are built and took off to lift off from Earth... we assume no bucking would have occurred from lift off stage... and the capsules are built under the Earths maximum air pressure acting on the outer side of the Craft/s.
And I assume their problem was to try to be able to equalise the air pressure within the craft thru out its lift off until it got into Space... IF they failed to do this correctly.. from the inner pressure of the craft.. maybe buckling could somehow occurr..
but as the Space crafts rise up higher.. the out side air pressure declines and becomes less of a threat... but I am unsure how they may monitor the inside pressure of the craft or capsule..
I assume that somehow they had a way to maintain the inner and outer pressure so that the inner pressure did not act or become too great as the outer pressure got less and less as the craft rose up higher to the point where outside air pressure would become less and less..
IF there was some probem with that.... the panels may have buckled to some degree...
or once in space... there would be very little if any pressure acting on the outer area of the craft.... but if the pressure was allowed to build up higher on the innner side of the craft.... that may act to push the inner to the outer panels of the craft outwards and buckle them..
Just how strong and ridgid the materials used were for stages I am not sure... BUT I recall seeing a replica of the Apollo Saturn V at Cape Canaveral in Florida and it seemed quite thick and strong solid material...
(https://jaspasjourney.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/img_7580.jpg)
No doubt some parts of it were designed to be lighter weight but strong... or maybe some sort of Aluminium alloy...
on doing a quick search on bing there seems very little information available about the materials used in Apollo Saturn V.. but this refers to some Aluminium Alloys..
Quote
What is Apollo 11 ship made of?
In Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11, Apollo Moon Missions
The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminum inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminum "face sheet". The central heat shield consisted of 40 individual panels interspersed with several holes and openings for the reaction control engines and after-compartment equipment access. The central compartment structure consisted of an inner aluminum face sheet with a steel honeycomb core, a glass-phenolic ablative honeycomb heat shield, a layer of q-felt fibrous insulation, a pore seal, a moisture barrier, and a layer of aluminized PET film thermal strips.
The aft heat shield consisted of four brazed honeycomb panels, four spot-welded sheet metal fairings, and a circumferential ring. The fairing segments were attached to the honeycomb panels and ring with conventional fasteners. The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were then thermally bonded to the inner skin in a giant autoclave. The aft heat shield is nearly identical to the central, with the exception of the outer alluminized PET film layer.
Its suggested most fuel in the Apollo flights was used to lift the the main important stages (That I assume was for the Command and Lunar Module) to get into space... and several lower stages of the Apollo were departed and was returned back to Earth that carried most of the fuel to allow the final stage to break out of the Earths atmosphere and into space.
I am not sure if one of the larger fuel sections also ened up in space.. maybe it did...
But How much Fuel would then be required to fly the remaining parts / stages of the craft to the moon and also allow it to return back to Earth..
On the return it was just purely the Command Module.. so I assume that command and connected Lunar module also may have been the only part of the craft to fly to the moon once it got into space from Earth...
I think it can be hard to recall exactly what stages were said to occur during the various stages in the flight..
Once the command module was in space... it was only a small part of the original apollo craft...and would then not need as much fuel to propel it thru space... BUT just how much was required to take it all the way to the moon ?
and how was the fuel prepared and carried.... Was it as a liquid or gas form / or compressed... and what weight and capacity was required to carry it ?
These are the questions that we would need to consider..
and from what I can recall one of the main things that John suggested that they could not carry enough fuel to get the craft to the moon , let alone also to come back ?
So my question is HOW MUCH FUEL WOULD THE LATER STAGES THAT GOT INTO SPACE ACTUALLY CARRY AND HOW MUCH WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO GET THOSE FINAL STAGEs/ sections TO THE MOON..
Was they using some sort of special fuel cell or something other than just a liquid or gas type fuel ?
that may of allowed the craft to travel the distances required or was it just a case that this was not available or possible back then or even now..
Could they have compressed fuel somehow or other in some form that may have allowed them to have more than what we may have considered.. or is that just very unlikely !
(http://legendsofspacetoys.com/images/funzone%20images/Sat-V-diagram.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg/800px-Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg)
QuoteCommand/Service Module
Main article: Apollo Command/Service Module
The cone-shaped Command Module, attached to the cylindrical Service Module, orbits the Moon with a panel removed, exposing the Scientific Instrument Module
Apollo 15 CSM in lunar orbit
The Command Module (CM) was the conical crew cabin, designed to carry three astronauts from launch to lunar orbit and back to an Earth ocean landing. It was the only component of the Apollo spacecraft to survive without major configuration changes as the program evolved from the early Apollo study designs. Its exterior was covered with an ablative heat shield, and had its own reaction control system (RCS) engines to control its attitude and steer its atmospheric entry path. Parachutes were carried to slow its descent to splashdown. The module was 11.42 feet (3.48 m) tall, 12.83 feet (3.91 m) in diameter, and weighed approximately 12,250 pounds (5,560 kg).[46]
A cylindrical Service Module (SM) supported the Command Module, with a service propulsion engine and an RCS with propellants, and a fuel cell power generation system with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen reactants. A high-gain S-band antenna was used for long-distance communications on the lunar flights. On the extended lunar missions, an orbital scientific instrument package was carried. The Service Module was discarded just before re-entry. The module was 24.6 feet (7.5 m) long and 12.83 feet (3.91 m) in diameter. The initial lunar flight version weighed approximately 51,300 pounds (23,300 kg) fully fueled, while a later version designed to carry a lunar orbit scientific instrument package weighed just over 54,000 pounds (24,000 kg).[46]
This link shows some of the stages that I refer to in the various operations....and answers some of the questions that I refer to... ie the type of fuel was liquid hydogen and a final stage took the command module actually into space...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
Quotefuel cell power generation system with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen reactants.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Po8oLVdPqSQ/TfBzivyQ3eI/AAAAAAAADSE/XhBj-Qo0hOE/s1600/Third+Stage.jpg)
when it shows stage 3 to 4.... At what point does occur I wonder.... is it done early on when its still close to Earth or as it approaches the moon or inbetween somewhere..
I ask this because if the craft had started to start its journey to the moon and had gained some momentum... it would not seem likely that they would slow down or stop the craft for it it to depart from what seems a last main stage that actually took it into space..
but also that last main stage may contain a fair ammount of fuel (more than that just in the command module) to allow the overall sections of the crafts to travel further towards the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Apollo11-01.png/1024px-Apollo11-01.png)
Launch The 3 Saturn V stages burn for about 11 minutes to achieve a 100-nautical-mile (190 km) circular parking orbit. The third stage burns a small portion of its fuel to achieve orbit
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Apollo11-02.png/1024px-Apollo11-02.png)
Translunar injection After one to two orbits to verify readiness of spacecraft systems, the S-IVB third stage reignites for about 6 minutes to send the spacecraft to the Moon.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Apollo11-03.png/1024px-Apollo11-03.png)
Transposition and docking (1) The Spacecraft Lunar Module Adapter (SLA) panels separate to free the CSM and expose the LM. The Command Module Pilot (CMP) moves the CSM out a safe distance, and turns 180°.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Apollo11-04.png)
Transposition and docking (2), The CMP docks with the LM, and pulls the combined spacecraft away from the S-IVB, which then is sent into solar orbit. The lunar voyage takes between 2 and 3 days. Midcourse corrections are made as necessary using the SM engine.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Apollo11-05.png)
Lunar orbit insertion The spacecraft passes about 60 nautical miles (110 km) behind the Moon, and the SM engine is fired to slow the spacecraft and put it into a 60-by-170-nautical-mile (110 by 310 km) orbit, which is soon circularized at 60 nautical miles by a second burn.
(http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BB4HKA/apollo-mission-profile-for-a-lunar-landing-and-return-outlining-the-BB4HKA.jpg)
BUT no Matter what...I would find it VERY HARD TO BELIEVE THAT NASA ENGINEERS.... Would appear to be showing what seems like very flimsy thin flexible panels on their Saturn V / Lunar modules Apollo program that would buckle as much as is shown in some of those photos and its the 1st time that I have seen such photos showing buckled panels on any Apollo craft...
Possibly this could be the lower parts of the Lunar module when it took of and split apart from the LM legged lower section as it took off from the lunar surface and maybe they are some sort of now distorted heat shields and not metallic panels....
but I am not really sure what it is we are seeing....with any certainty...
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_001.png)
Some panels appear on the side of the Lunar Module which I dont think are purely heat shields..
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0b1ac890.jpg)
This show the panels of the Lunar Module while its still in full tact.... before it took off and split apart...or lifted of from the moons surface... either that or its just a replica photo to make it appear as its from the moon...
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0ad208c0.jpg)
Astro, you are putting apples in the peach bowl; the buckled plates are on the lunar module ascent stage, specifically where the upper and lower units were joined;
part of what is shown in that picture are thermal shields to protect the bottom of the ascent stage from the blast of the motor as they lifted off; they are semi-ridgid material to begin with
Gus Grissom (RIP) called the entire NASA program from Mercury to Apollo a dog and pony show for the public and said he and the other astronauts were "spam in a can".
I can make out some of the buckled images are from the Lunar Module.. but some of the others I am not sure that I really know what it is that I am seeing...
on some of the diagrams that I posted... it shows how the lunar and command module are positioned and connect to each other... but some of the buckled pictures images "Z "posted do not seem like the lunar or command module to me.. so I am not really sure what the image actually is ..
can you tell me exactly what part this is... as it does not like like either module that I referred to.
I am not sure how you mean or relate to the blast of the motor.... is that from lift off from Earth or seperation of certain stages in space or from the moon ?
I ask as during lift off from Earth stage....the Command and Lunar module are at the top part of the Saturn V... they are not near the lower engines where the main blasts from the engines would be..and they are enclosed or connected to the 3rd stage higher up further away from the main engine blasts on take off.....
(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/hires/as16-122-19533.jpg)
is this image a combination of command and lunar module or just the Lunar Module or something else that connected with either of them ?
or is it this part when it lifts of and seperates from lift off from the moons lunar surface or later after it reconnects with the commnad module and then later departs it again.... but the image shows the moon close up in the background...so its something that was taken near to the moon stage....? which when I look what you have said again .. is what I think you mean !
You have to forgive me... its a LONG times since I have looked at the Apollo or Saturn V craft or details.. or stages of the parts of the Space Craft and some parts I have not even ever really thought about...
but hopefully my comments will refer or remind readers some details about it without them having to do full further research...as I am sure many were not fully familiar..
and hopefully some of my questions will still relate to Johns theories they we may want to still consider as to whether or not the Apollo program went to the moon or not...
(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/hires/s69-39335.jpg)
QuoteAstro, you are putting apples in the peach bowl; the buckled plates are on the lunar module ascent stage, specifically where the upper and lower units were joined;
part of what is shown in that picture are thermal shield
Quote from: The Seeker on July 27, 2018, 03:31:19 PM
Astro, you are putting apples in the peach bowl; the buckled plates are on the lunar module ascent stage, specifically where the upper and lower units were joined;
part of what is shown in that picture are thermal shields to protect the bottom of the ascent stage from the blast of the motor as they lifted off; they are semi-ridgid material to begin with
Gus Grissom (RIP) called the entire NASA program from Mercury to Apollo a dog and pony show for the public and said he and the other astronauts were "spam in a can".
Sorry about this.....
On my prior posts.... YOu can see the same content as below...
I intended to add some further content to this post as is also now shown in the prior ..
on making the added ammendment.... I accidently added to the wrong post... and when I finally noticed I was no longer able to delete this same content from the prior post..
so I am adding it to this one as well.... Hope that explains..
BUT no Matter what...I would find it VERY HARD TO BELIEVE THAT NASA ENGINEERS.... Would appear to be showing what seems like very flimsy thin flexible panels on their Saturn V / Lunar modules Apollo program that would buckle as much as is shown in some of those photos and its the 1st time that I have seen such photos showing buckled panels on any Apollo craft...
Possibly this could be the lower parts of the Lunar module when it took of and split apart from the LM legged lower section as it took off from the lunar surface and maybe they are some sort of now distorted heat shields and not metallic panels....
but I am not really sure what it is we are seeing....with any certainty...
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_001.png)
Some panels appear on the side of the Lunar Module which I dont think are purely heat shields..
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0b1ac890.jpg)
This show the panels of the Lunar Module while its still in full tact.... before it took off and split apart...or lifted of from the moons surface... either that or its just a replica photo to make it appear as its from the moon...
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0ad208c0.jpg)
For some reason some of the content Zorgon posted did not appear correct and I could not easily read it...so I am adding those parts that I could not see very well..
On looking again , I can now see it refers to certain details that I had not really noticed first time.. esp in ref to the image below..
Quote[b]The ascent stage of the Apollo 16 Lunar Module (LM[/b]) approaches the Command and Service Modules (CSM) during rendezvous, with a contrasting background of darkness and the moon's Sea of Fertility (Mare Fecundatatis). Taken from the CSM, the photo shows the aft side of the LM during a yaw maneuver. Note the buckled thermal panels. Messier and Messier A (right center) are among the most readily identifiable features on the surface below
Does the aft side of the LM during a yaw manouver mean that you can see its under section side that would have joined with the legged part of the LM that gets left on the moon when the LM takes off from the Lunar surface of the Moon ?
QuoteAFT Meaning .....adv. & adj.
At, in, toward, or close to the stern of a vessel or ]the rear of an aircraft or spacecraft
QuoteYAW meaning
(of a moving ship or aircraft) twist or oscillate about a vertical axis.
Not sure about the Direction of flight shown in this diagram ! ???
(https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/2808988_f520.jpg)
The Lunar Module is in two main parts known as the Accent and Decent stages...
The Decent stage is the lower part with the legs that land on the Moon..
The accent stage : is the top part of the LM that splits apart and takes off when the LM lifts off from the Lunar or Moons surface to go back towards and reconnect back to the Command Module.... to then return back to Earth.
(http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/lem1.gif)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r5hisAyVBZ8/U__nPJXrNvI/AAAAAAAACAc/N0VOIaPoMws/s1600/LEM_Parts.PNG)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UNUm9V1kH9c/VFTqvAJQDXI/AAAAAAAACHU/42A5MXqajsg/s1600/Mylar.jpg)
QuoteThe descent stage thermal shield combines multiple layers of aluminized mylar and H-film with an outer skin of H-film. In areas where micrometeorite protection is required, one layer of black-painted inconel is used as skin. The shield is mounted on supports, which keep it at least 1/2 inch away from the main structure. The supports have low thermal conductivity. A base heat shield, composed of titanium with a blanket of alternate layers of nickel foil and fiberfax outside, protects the bottom of the descent stage from engine heat, In addition, the engine compartment is protected by a titanium shield with a thermal blanket of multiple layers of nickel foil and fiberfax under an outer blanket of H-film.
https://dodlithr.blogspot.com/2014/08/lm-descent-to-moon-part-2-hardware.html
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_001.png)
QuoteThis photograph was taken inside building No 5 at Johnson Space Center.
It shows astroNOTS sorting over disused metal cabinets, and other junk paraphernalia from which to build a LM for fake photographs. Note the octagonal shaped box left of center, which was used to build the model LM.
QuoteThe front end of this LM appears to have undergone some sort of bashing with a sledgehammer or other, well it's only a cardboard model innit, set against a fake backdrop of the Moon surface.
I only hope the astroNOTS were wearing their hard hats when the battering took place.
Quote
AS16-122-19533 (23 April 1972) --- The ascent stage of the Apollo 16 Lunar Module (LM) approaches the Command and Service Modules (CSM) during rendezvous, with a contrasting background of darkness and the moon's Sea of Fertility (Mare Fecundatatis). Taken from the CSM, the photo shows the aft side of the LM during a yaw maneuver. Note the buckled thermal panels. Messier and Messier A (right center) are among the most readily identifiable features on the surface below. While astronauts John W. Young, commander; and Charles M. Duke Jr., lunar module pilot; descended in the Apollo 16 LM "Orion" to explore the Descartes highlands landing site on the moon, astronaut Thomas K. Mattingly II, command module pilot, remained with the CSM "Casper" in lunar orbit.
I assume as its Apollo 16.... that the design changed since Apollo 11 days and they had added the Gold foil to the LM for some reason..
QuoteYou probably remember the lunar modules, wrapped in bright gold like a present to the cosmos. I always thought that there was one layer of foil to reflect the harsh sunlight in space.
I was surprised to see that this blanket from the Apollo 16 LM was made of 26 layers, of different colors and thicknesses.
As I recently learned, the foil was also a thermal blanket, not just a reflector. Earlier this month, EDN Magazine interviewed Grumman's Ross Bracco, one of 25 engineers who began development of the LEM, as it was first called:
Still another major challenge Bracco and his team faced was the fact that the LEM was expected to land on the sunny side of the lunar surface, which meant an environmental temperature of 250°F and a shade temperature of -250°F. A low-cost technique was needed to insulate and protect the LEM's structural materials, including the landing feet. The team decided to use 12 to 18 layers of Kapton or aluminized Mylar material sandwiched together in a 70°F earth clean room and trap the air with a special sealing tape. This trapped air remained permanently at 70°F and was used in many areas of the LEM, including the cupped landing feet. The 'foil' around much of the LEM was made with 2- and 5-mil aluminized Kapton film.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LicCbCGnv5o/VFVli5pOPJI/AAAAAAAACJA/S25aNG0tM5c/s1600/AS11-40-5863.jpg)
https://dodlithr.blogspot.com/2014/08/lm-descent-to-moon-part-2-hardware.html
Quote
The photo below is to ridiculous for words. NASA claim this is the actual Apollo 16 Lunar Module on the Moon. Look at all that gold foil around the base, and why is that gold foil not seen in the photo of Apollo 11 LM, after all they were of the same design. I would like to know how they got the Rover out without tearing this gold foil. In addition to the gold foil there is also some sought of black fabric draped just anywhere. What a mess, moreover what a joke. Look at side of LM. It's made up of sheets of thin metal pop riveted together, or maybe cardboard held together with double sided tape. Even the joints are not seated flat, but buckle out in all directions. The under side looks like corrugated sheet, and even that does not mate correctly with the vertical panels. If this is top quality engineering for such an important mission, then I'm a banana. Can't you PAN's see that this is a quick knock-up job, taken in a studio here on Earth, to satisfy gullible people like yourselves, it could not have landed on Moon. Incidentally Grumman built a life size LM in cardboard, I think this is it.
Quote from: The Seeker on July 27, 2018, 03:31:19 PM
Astro, you are putting apples in the peach bowl; the buckled plates are on the lunar module ascent stage, specifically where the upper and lower units were joined;
part of what is shown in that picture are thermal shields to protect the bottom of the ascent stage from the blast of the motor as they lifted off; they are semi-ridgid material to begin with
Gus Grissom (RIP) called the entire NASA program from Mercury to Apollo a dog and pony show for the public and said he and the other astronauts were "spam in a can".
Quote from: astr0144 on July 27, 2018, 07:26:54 PM
Does the aft side of the LM mean that you can see its under section side that would have joined with the legged part of the LM that gets left on the moon when the LM takes off from the Lunar surface of the Moon ?
Yes
Thks for confirming..
IF anyone continues to research into this in further depth..
Somewhere in this blog link.... it makes what seems quite detailed ref to the certain various fuel systems of the module stages.... and may give more detail somewhere on most of the other stages fuel details etc.. if they are to be believed..
they seem quite convincing and technical.. but its hard to say if they are for real or not in ref to DID it really get to the Moon..and do as it describes..
https://dodlithr.blogspot.com/2014/08/lm-descent-to-moon-part-2-hardware.html
The general basis of the Spacecraft weight and fuel load as described for the Saturn V in ref to Wikapedia
QuoteSaturn V launch vehicles and flights were designated with an AS-500 series number, "AS" indicating "Apollo Saturn" and the "5" indicating Saturn V.[60] The three-stage Saturn V was designed to send a fully fueled CSM and LM to the Moon. It was 33 feet (10.1 m) in diameter and stood 363 feet (110.6 m) tall with its 96,800-pound (43,900 kg) lunar payload. Its capability grew to 103,600 pounds (47,000 kg) for the later advanced lunar landings. The S-IC first stage burned RP-1/LOX for a rated thrust of 7,500,000 pounds-force (33,400 kN), which was upgraded to 7,610,000 pounds-force (33,900 kN). The second and third stages burned liquid hydrogen, and the third stage was a modified version of the S-IVB, with thrust increased to 230,000 pounds-force (1,020 kN) and capability to restart the engine for translunar injection after reaching a parking orbit.[61]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
Quote from: The Seeker on July 27, 2018, 08:36:23 PM
Yes
Quote from: petrus4 on July 27, 2018, 06:40:38 AM
I don't think it's severe, but to me his responses do imply minor senility. The pace of the speech, and the halting between words at times.
I should make clear that this in no way diminishes his value as an individual, however. Age is a tragedy, and it occurs to all of us. The greatness of some, such as him, magnify said tragic element when it occurs. I remember a friend telling me that when Bob Kane, the creator of Batman died, despite the fact that it was of natural causes, some still regarded him as a martyr. Some people contribute sufficiently in their lives, that whenever they go, it can be difficult for the rest of us to understand how we will continue without them.
I believe you might be correct. He is a great man.
Quote from: The Seeker on July 27, 2018, 03:31:19 PM
Gus Grissom (RIP) called the entire NASA program from Mercury to Apollo a dog and pony show for the public and said he and the other astronauts were "spam in a can".
Exactly. It was an exhibition for people who didn't really know anything about the subject matter involved, and who didn't care, beyond wanting to have a general sense of awe about the government's supposed ability to go into space.
Ok ive avoided putting my 2 cents on this because none of it reLly matters in the end. I'm not discussing whether there were moon landings or not, I'm commenting on what Aldrin said. Here goes:
When he said 'we didn't go" he was speaking to the question of why we hadn't been back in such a long time. He was answering a child btw. In others words we didn't go in such a long time, not that we never went.
It's ridiculous how people are so grasping at any little thing to justify their point of view.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 29, 2018, 03:29:06 AM
In others words we didn't go in such a long time, not that we never went.
And after all the time that has passed... we should have a main stream base in there already.. yes big brother style... and we "dont"... dont you wonder why?
Quote from: RUSSO on July 29, 2018, 04:24:09 AM
And after all the time that has passed... we should have a main stream base in there already.. yes big brother style... and we "dont"... dont you wonder why?
No as it doesn't really matter. There are many stated reasons why we haven't been back. I.e. cost, other priorities. Some stated and some 'hidden'.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 29, 2018, 04:29:02 AM
No as it doesn't really matter. There are many stated reasons why we haven't been back. I.e. cost, other priorities. Some stated and some 'hidden'.
yes it really matter. You talk about cost in a world where cost has only meaning to peasants. priorities? which one are you talking about? oil?
you see.... what takes one to believe in something? a video? a picture? recursive talking? meh.
Quote from: RUSSO on July 29, 2018, 04:41:02 AM
yes it really matter. You talk about cost in a world where cost has only meaning to peasants. priorities? which one are you talking about? oil?
you see.... what takes one to believe in something? a video? a picture? recursive talking? meh.
Peasants? Cost is everything to everyone. Whether peasants or Tycoons.
Priorities are what drives the peasant & the Tycoon. They are just different.
But we digress. Back on topic. IMO Aldrin wasn't talking about never having gone at all.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 29, 2018, 05:17:34 AM
Peasants? Cost is everything to everyone. Whether peasants or Tycoons.
Priorities are what drives the peasant & the Tycoon. They are just different.
But we digress. Back on topic. IMO Aldrin wasn't talking about never having gone at all.
BIG DIFFERENCE YES! yes! they are different in their priorities. One want to keep alive hinself other want <more/keep> power. BIG DIFFERENCE> topic or not!
Topic? do you have any doubt human race gonne there??? Why do you think we dont have a main stream CNN television 24 7 in the moon already? how much money you can make with tv like that? Sometimes enought is enougth. People are not that stupid anymore... they just dont want more trouble in their little peasant lives.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 29, 2018, 03:29:06 AM
It's ridiculous how people are so grasping at any little thing to justify their point of view.
Agreed. I've never understood why some people seem to be so desperate to believe/prove this particular conspiracy theory, either. If it were true, it would destroy the credibility of the space program pretty much completely; which is probably the main reason why I consider it unlikely. The American government
has done some stupid things before, yes; but I don't think they're quite
that silly.
Quote from: RUSSO on July 29, 2018, 04:41:02 AM
yes it really matter. You talk about cost in a world where cost has only meaning to peasants. priorities? which one are you talking about? oil?
I agree with
Sgt.Rocknroll.
Like everyone else that thinks about they are going to do, governments weight costs against what they can gain with it. In the case of a Moon base, the costs would be huge, even for a rich country, but what would be the gains? What were the gains from the Apollo missions? Many people do not even know about the last two missions.
I was under the impression that the only real reason why the Moon landing happened at all, was because the American government wanted to look superior to Russia at the time, and thought that would be a very effective way to do it.
Quote from: petrus4 on July 29, 2018, 12:28:03 PM
I was under the impression that the only real reason why the Moon landing happened at all, was because the American government wanted to look superior to Russia at the time, and thought that would be a very effective way to do it.
Plus the Kennedy speach.
Sometimes Peggy reminds me of this:
https://youtu.be/uLlv_aZjHXc
Just for giggles now.... ;)
Is it possible we went via the Secret Space Program and still filmed it on the moon?
Quote from: Irene on July 29, 2018, 09:29:53 PM
Is it possible we went via the Secret Space Program and still filmed it on the moon?
Given both the information Zorgon just presented, and my own impression of NASA's level of technology, Irene, that is the scenario that I am beginning to suspect, yes. I can't remember seeing a NASA vessel in any presentation for mainstream consumption, which I considered spaceworthy; and keep in mind that this is coming from someone who knows very little about space at all, really.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 29, 2018, 04:29:02 AM
No as it doesn't really matter.
YES It really DOES MATTER :P
Because that is what Pegasus is all about and was created for in the first place. To say it doesn't matter HERE is just silly
Hey RUSSO!!! Glad to see your still kicking Welcome back
Quote from: zorgon on July 30, 2018, 01:09:59 PM
YES It really DOES MATTER :P
Because that is what Pegasus is all about and was created for in the first place. To say it doesn't matter HERE is just silly
Hey RUSSO!!! Glad to see your still kicking Welcome back
;)
Quote from: petrus4 on July 27, 2018, 01:18:52 PMHowever, while I won't claim to be nearly as knowledgeable on the subject as you, I've also heard online whispers about the strange and magical things that have possibly been invented under Groom Lake.
It has ALWAYS been our position that yes we went to the Moon but NOT with Apollo... and it is the Apollo scrap metal that is in question. What ever secret programs there may or may not be we have presented as much as we have been able to verify and the rest... well... ITS SECRET LOL
Unfortunately the current charlatans,(Mike Salla, Corey Goode, et al) have so destroyed any credibility in secret astronaut research they might as well be government dis info agents
Quote from: astr0144 on July 27, 2018, 02:30:54 PM
Looking at the pictures of the twisted and buckled plates on the Nasa Space Craft.. if they are for real...
Yes they are for real as they are direct from the NASA Apollo archives with mission number and film reel number
QuoteOne question is what caused that ?
GOOD QUESTION No one has ever answered it. Apollo Huggers just blow it off and ignore it.
Now LOOK at this picture you posted... it is OBVIOUSLY photoshopped, because the Moon is NOT black and white (gray scale). We all know that.. have proven it many times... so here you have a full color spacecraft superimposed on a gray scale moon... yet people look at it and assume it is NORMAL and a real photo
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg/800px-Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg)
I find it difficult to fathom how people just ignore the obvious.
Apart from a few people on Forums like this... The general public will only believe that the Moons colour is Grey Like..
which is the colour most of us tend to believe that we see when we look up to the Moon from Earth..
but also we do see the Moon from Earth also as differing colours depending when we see it...or what time of the day or year we may see it or at what stage that we see the Moon at..
We can see the moon in the day and it usually looks more grey like... but during the night when its full moon at full glow its appears more brighter or more yellow or golden...
these 3 images show varying colours...
admittedly they do use filters on some images...and some are taken as black and white photos where the image would appear always as more grey like...
(https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP._bkEkjkHPq0Ap-UAQCcoxgHaFj&pid=Api)
(https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.GUw9RByQx2iUPVlVSnM8ogHaGG&pid=Api)
(https://www.almanac.com/sites/default/files/image_nodes/full-moon-1920x1440_pixabay.jpg)
I think in this photo thats its closer to the Colour that you suggest is the moons true colour..
(https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.73Z7y3sx_4Lz-3iCDZivPwHaHY&pid=Api)
or maybe this
(http://www.wallpapers13.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/The-real-color-of-the-Moon-0859-915x515.jpg)
NOTE the title in the image ... ??? the-real-color-of-the-moon
http://www.wallpapers13.com/the-real-color-of-the-moon-0859/
This is how many see the moon... just as a bright shining object in the sky , maybe similar to the Sun in some ways !...
(http://weneedfun.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Yellow-Moon-12.jpg)
IF NASA are showing real photos of their craft in Space... as the one shown below of the Command Module...
in this case they have shown the moon as being also Grey..
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg/800px-Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg)
But on the Lunar Module photos where we questioned the varied buckling formations on differing parts of it (depending which photos and what part and area of it was being shown)....you show two almost identical photos of them.. one that shows a Grey Moon and another very similar related photo is showing what you believe is the Moons true colour.. a more brown to bronze like colour.
In the Asent stage or TOP Part of the Lunar Module Photos that you posted.... that do appear to be showing the real actual LM craft. and its just the background moon that is more questionable but only for those who question its colour..
so what are they doing then in the difference in these two photos ? They seem to show the same LM craft even though one seems maybe at different distance away or the photos magnification size vary and the photo is taken maybe from a slightly different angle..
so are they really showing us a photo of a real lunar module that had taken off from the moon... or is this just made up for creating an image for the public to see ?
and why would they have an issue about hiding the moons real colour unless it has been faked ...
so if they did really go and land there...by Apollo mission or by other means such as a secret space mission..
if the color of the moon is different to what we see from Earth.... could they have not just explained that to the public ? and explain the Science behind why the colour varys...due to Earths atmosphere or what ever....and to have shown actual real footgage of its true colour..
but back in 1969... on Apollo 11.... I dont think they seemed to have very good camera quality so maybe the color shown was mor easily to mislead the public... but that camera quality had got better by the time they did the last Apollo 17 mission some years later..
(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/hires/as16-122-19533.jpg)
IF YOU were to rotate this image by 180 degrees.... and alter its magnification... I think its the exact same image as the one above.... other than the colour of the moon..
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/browse/AS16/122/19533.jpg)
ON the Photos of the Lunar Module that shows the side panels as being buckled..... If they are for real... I would find it very hard to believe that the Engineers involved who designed and built it... that they would have allowed such buckling to have occurred..
and if it did actually occur... you would think that theres a good possibility that the Lunar Module would had been damaged in a way that it was a severe problem to the Astronauts in being able to stay inside it in a space like atmosphere without them continually wearing their space suits....to be able to breath or survive within it ... if say it had created holes within the LM system that had leaked air within it..
I assume.... that IF they are real photos of the LM on the moon... that the buckled panels shown... were just some sort of outer skin like protection panels...against heat, or certain sized minor meteors or small like rocks... rather than dust... You would think maybe also Dust could get inside the cracks during landing and take off as the Moons lunar dust would be disturbed ....
BUT you would think that that could had done a MUCH better job at its design cover..and covering and fitting it to be either one main piece or to have ensured if say it had been rivited that it was much more or better held together..
but it appears to be screwed or bolted together, rather than rivited...in 12 parts of more just on that one side that is shown...
what other reasoning would you suggest behind it ?
Quote
Yes they are for real as they are direct from the NASA Apollo archives with mission number and film reel number
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0b1ac890.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0ad208c0.jpg)
Quote from: zorgon on July 31, 2018, 05:50:41 AM
Now LOOK at this picture you posted... it is OBVIOUSLY photoshopped, because the Moon is NOT black and white (gray scale).
Yes, that image was photoshopped, the original looks like this:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS15-88-11963.jpg)
QuoteWe all know that.. have proven it many times... so here you have a full color spacecraft superimposed on a gray scale moon... yet people look at it and assume it is NORMAL and a real photo
Having problems with colours again? ;)
That's not a greyscale Moon, the area to the left (on the original photo) is brownish and the area to the top right corner appears slightly greenish. You can see it by increasing the saturation in any graphics program.
I am not sure what difference is in the Images that you posted ArMaP.. compared to the other suggested faked image..
Can you clarfy what it is that you have posted that differs... as your posted image just looks similar but just shown at a different angle...that I think is just a photo from your monitor screen ...and it seems black and white or grey in the moons background..
so the background of the moon just looks similar to the grey background in the suggested fake image of the command module..
so what are you saying is different in the original photo that you refer to ?
ArMaP
QuoteYes, that image was photoshopped, the original looks like this:
Quote from: ArMaP on July 31, 2018, 11:19:38 PM
Yes, that image was photoshopped, the original looks like this:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS15-88-11963.jpg)
Well THAT my friend is the problem As Long as NASA is phtoshopping images who can take them seriously? But you forget photoshop was not invented back then :P And thanks for that photo It sure proves that they did use THIS SET
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/098027c0.jpe)
QuoteHaving problems with colours again? ;)
That's not a greyscale Moon, the area to the left (on the original photo) is brownish and the area to the top right corner appears slightly greenish. You can see it by increasing the saturation in any graphics program.
Well yes... That cheesy greenish and brownish tint was added by the special effects department , which back then was just shining some floodlights onto the moon model they used
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/099307c0.jpe)
As for that spacecraft that is obviously a different resolution, they did it the same way Star Trek did it in the 60's They hung a model on a string in front of the background
Today we use green screen tech but back then it was all old school with models and painted back drops Here is the orginal Enterprize
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yTQcGFxX7hk/maxresdefault.jpg)
Quote from: astr0144 on August 01, 2018, 12:39:53 PM
I am not sure what difference is in the Images that you posted ArMaP.. compared to the other suggested faked image..
The other image was cropped and rotated, the original is not. :)
QuoteCan you clarfy what it is that you have posted that differs... as your posted image just looks similar but just shown at a different angle...that I think is just a photo from your monitor screen ...and it seems black and white or grey in the moons background..
No, not a photo of my monitor, that would be silly. :) I got that photo from The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/)
Quote from: zorgon on August 01, 2018, 11:20:07 PM
Well THAT my friend is the problem As Long as NASA is phtoshopping images who can take them seriously? But you forget photoshop was not invented back then :P
I didn't forget it, we are talking about a digital copy, not about a physical copy.
QuoteAnd thanks for that photo It sure proves that they did use THIS SET
It does not, as we can see that the model looks terribly fake, while what we see on the photo looks natural.
QuoteWell yes... That cheesy greenish and brownish tint was added by the special effects department , which back then was just shining some floodlights onto the moon model they used
You were saying that it was a greyscale image, now you say they were shining floodlights onto the model. ::)
QuoteAs for that spacecraft that is obviously a different resolution, they did it the same way Star Trek did it in the 60's They hung a model on a string in front of the background
Different resolution? That only happens with digital images, when they use parts from different sources to make a composite image. With physical photos the photo would be of the whole set. Even a double exposure would have the same resolution across the whole photo, as the photo would be only one.
Quote from: ArMaP on July 31, 2018, 11:19:38 PM
Yes, that image was photoshopped, the original looks like this:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS15-88-11963.jpg)
Please explain to me where that picture was taken... It looks like the command module out side the window of the approaching lander?
(https://static.turbosquid.com/Preview/2014/05/26__05_27_30/lem_front.jpgb6652df8-c71e-4f52-8c65-f070b6e8cc7eLarger.jpg)
I see TWO small triangular windows... Please point to me where on the Lunar Mudule we can see that big square window...
Thanks
I am not sure how you found the suggested original image in the NASA photo search link that you posted...as the link did not take to the actual photo that you posted.... So I assume you put in certain wording description to have found that particular image... if so could you tell us what description wording that you used to search for that image..
Even then I am still confused.. as the image does not look anything like what Id expect to see on a NASA website..
It looks very much like an image taken from someones TV or Monitor to me and uploaded..
The reason I say that is because its not Cropped and squared off..or centrilised .. its off centre. ! . Looking at the photo.. it looks angled or slanted somehow... (That maybe the curvature of the moon in the background at the lower part.... but what are we seeing on the right side and part above) something does not seem clear or easy to decipher..
I can some sort of faint lines or ghost like imaging to the right and top part of the photo..
I thought all NASA images were cropped... and did not think that they will show any originals that the public actually gets to see that is made obvious.. ???
Also why would NASA show the Command Module appearing to look at the angle that your Suggested Original photo
is showing... ie as if its Front part is heading upwards or verticle rather than moving sidewards Horizontally as if its going around the moons equator or similar sort of horizontal line around another part of the moons Circumference....even thou its slightly tilted.. as the cropped image shows it..
I dont think that I have ever seen a picture of a Command Module appearing to be in a tilted sort of take off position before with its nose at the top as such ! ???
In the image you posted.. you can see some colours on the CM if you look closely...so its not a B&W or Grey like photo..
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg/800px-Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS15-88-11963.jpg)
Quote from: ArMaP on August 02, 2018, 12:21:15 AM
The other image was cropped and rotated, the original is not. :)
No, not a photo of my monitor, that would be silly. :) I got that photo from The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/)
If that image of the Command Module (CM) is real... then I can only think that it was taken from the Lunar Module .. either after it departed to go to land on the Moon.. or later after when it had left or taken of from the moon to reconnect back with the C.M...
what other craft could have been out there to have taken that photo ? Nothing that I can think of or am aware of..
without looking at very close up details of the LM... I think its hard to say how or from where the photo could have been taken from... Could they have had cameras on the outside to take photos rather than astronauts taking a photo from behind a window...
That was also Apollo 16 CM. so they may have altered something for the better photo wise... since the Apollo 11 mission..
QuoteZorgon..
Please explain to me where that picture was taken... It looks like the command module out side the window of the approaching lander?
I see TWO small triangular windows... Please point to me where on the Lunar Mudule we can see that big square window...
Thanks
Quote from: zorgon on August 02, 2018, 09:33:26 AM
Please explain to me where that picture was taken... It looks like the command module out side the window of the approaching lander?
Yes, that's it.
Quote(https://static.turbosquid.com/Preview/2014/05/26__05_27_30/lem_front.jpgb6652df8-c71e-4f52-8c65-f070b6e8cc7eLarger.jpg)
I see TWO small triangular windows... Please point to me where on the Lunar Mudule we can see that big square window...
What big square window? We only see two sides of the window frame.
Judging by the look of the window frame and the position of the shade it looks to be the window on the left side (looking out of the LM) of the LM.
This might help. 8)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10011/normal_interi10.jpg)
On doing a quick search, so far I can only seem to see Triangular Windows on the LM.. although there is also a small more rectangular docking window shown in the diagram below... shown as being on the top left hand side..
I a not sure if there are other windows elsewhere... but diagrams show the Lunar Module with the triangular windows..
in these diagrams you cannot see whats on the others sides or to the rear back side of it... or I could not until I found the link shown below that shows various images at different sides of it on a Model...
it seems sort of symetrical...but on one side you do have the FORWARD Hatch to the Steps that I assume may be classed as the Front of it..
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tcXfYUIMeOA/T8nfGJb92_I/AAAAAAAAA0Y/kbXFzsjS79c/s1600/LEM.png)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mHYRUEn4yjM/T8nfG_CfPjI/AAAAAAAAA0g/e0mCgcTq2lk/s1600/LEM2.png)
https://dodlithr.blogspot.com/search/label/Apollo%20Systems
some other images and links below..
(http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/435602/530wm/C0114654-Apollo_lunar_module_cabin_mock-up-SPL.jpg)
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/435602/view
(http://www.lmsim.com/screenyhatchsuperb.png)
This seems an interesting link on a LM simulator.
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum41/HTML/000271.html
(http://space1.com/photos/LM_sim_Joliet_overall_interior500.jpg)
(http://space1.com/Spacecraft_Data/Handbook_Illustrations/Apollo_Lunar_Module/LM_Cabin_Forward/LM_forward_cabin800.jpg)
http://space1.com/Museum_Exhibits/Spacecraft_Simulators/Lunar_Landing_Sim/lunar_landing_sim.html
Some images of the acent LM stage that maybe to the other side of it...
The 1st one does show the Rectangular window
(http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/lm5%20side2.jpg)
(http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/lm5%20side1.jpg)
(http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-of-apollo-16-ascent-stage.jpg)
(http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/lm5%20front.jpg)
(https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.XIHm3ZFTfTY9ffH4V0J0KwHaF-&pid=Api)
(http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/lm-5_006.jpg)
This link shows various images of the Lunar Module..That I think will show all the Windows..
you can see different images from differing angles.. like as if you were able to rotate it..
http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/johno.htm
(http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/lm-5_004.jpg)
This image also shows the rectangular window
(http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/lm-5_022.jpg)
(http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/lm-5_017.jpg)
(http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/lm-5_018.jpg)
So Maybe this photo descriped by ArMaP as an original is showing the Command Module at what ever angle that it appears at and the other parts to the right and top part of the photo is the inside of the Lunar Module.
or is there some sort of camera that may connect to a sort of TV screen inside the LM that we may be seeing ?
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS15-88-11963.jpg)
Quote from: astr0144 on August 02, 2018, 09:57:55 AM
I am not sure how you found the suggested original image in the NASA photo search link that you posted...as the link did not take to the actual photo that you posted.... So I assume you put in certain wording description to have found that particular image... if so could you tell us what description wording that you used to search for that image..
Yes, you need to search for the image ID, in this case AS15-88-11963. Here (https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/photo.pl?mission=AS15&roll=88&frame=11963)'s the result of that search.
QuoteEven then I am still confused.. as the image does not look anything like what Id expect to see on a NASA website..
It looks very much like an image taken from someones TV or Monitor to me and uploaded..
The reason I say that is because its not Cropped and squared off..or centrilised .. its off centre. ! . Looking at the photo.. it looks angled or slanted somehow... (That maybe the curvature of the moon in the background at the lower part.... but what are we seeing on the right side and part above) something does not seem clear or easy to decipher..
I can some sort of faint lines or ghost like imaging to the right and top part of the photo..
I thought all NASA images were cropped... and did not think that they will show any originals that the public actually gets to see that is made obvious.. ???
That's why I like that site, they have digital versions of the unprocessed photos, we can see where the emulsion ends. Also, they have the highest definition versions.
QuoteAlso why would NASA show the Command Module appearing to look at the angle that your Suggested Original photo
is showing... ie as if its Front part is heading upwards or verticle rather than moving sidewards Horizontally as if its going around the moons equator or similar sort of horizontal line around another part of the moons Circumference....even thou its slightly tilted.. as the cropped image shows it..
The Command Module was rotating to point the docking hatch to the Lunar Module, so they could dock.
QuoteI dont think that I have ever seen a picture of a Command Module appearing to be in a tilted sort of take off position before with its nose at the top as such ! ???
QuoteIn the image you posted.. you can see some colours on the CM if you look closely...so its not a B&W or Grey like photo..
You don't even need to look closely, that's obviously a colour image, even the Moon has colour.
QuoteIf that image of the Command Module (CM) is real... then I can only think that it was taken from the Lunar Module .. either after it departed to go to land on the Moon.. or later after when it had left or taken of from the moon to reconnect back with the C.M...
It was taken when they were returning from the Moon and docking to the Command Module.
Quotewithout looking at very close up details of the LM... I think its hard to say how or from where the photo could have been taken from... Could they have had cameras on the outside to take photos rather than astronauts taking a photo from behind a window...
No, it was taken from inside, with a Hasselblad camera.
QuoteThat was also Apollo 16 CM. so they may have altered something for the better photo wise... since the Apollo 11 mission..
That photo is from Apollo 15, not 16.
Quote from: astr0144 on August 02, 2018, 09:57:55 AM
I can some sort of faint lines or ghost like imaging to the right and top part of the photo..
Those faint lines (that I first thought were part of the window shade) are the lines from the Landing Point Designator.
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lpdin.jpg)
Thanks for your explanations ArMaP...
That website looks very good ...
I am not sure that I can entirely agree with somethings that you say.. as I am not sure how you know the details that you describe, such as the CM being photographed in a vertical position.. but what you say could explain it..
I could really only see some colour on he C.M...but only if I looked closely...the moon background colour did not stand out... like the colour "Z" claims it should be..
QuoteYes, you need to search for the image ID, in this case AS15-88-11963. Here's the result of that search.
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/photo.pl?mission=AS15&roll=88&frame=11963
I think when I posted one of the Images of the C.M.. it suggested it was from Apollo 16..
But maybe the ref your show refers to Apollo 15 !
AS15-88-11963
Thats good that you found an exlanation for the faint lines...good find !
Quote from: ArMaP on August 03, 2018, 09:45:54 PM
Those faint lines (that I first thought were part of the window shade) are the lines from the Landing Point Designator.
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lpdin.jpg)
Quote from: astr0144 on August 03, 2018, 10:50:25 PM
I am not sure that I can entirely agree with somethings that you say.. as I am not sure how you know the details that you describe, such as the CM being photographed in a vertical position.. but what you say could explain it..
Look at this page (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?88). The images are not as good, but as it shows all the photos from that roll in sequence you can see how the Command Module was being manoeuvred for the docking.
QuoteI could really only see some colour on he C.M...but only if I looked closely...the moon background colour did not stand out... like the colour "Z" claims it should be..
Colour reproduction is a big problem, as is monitor calibration, so we can never know what colours other people are seeing. Besides that technical problem we also have the fact that different people see different colours, so being sure becomes even harder. I have no problem in seeing colours on that photo.
Thats another good website showing those series of photos....
It does suggest that the pictures are from after the LM take off ?
So which Window do you think that photo would have been taken from ?
The triangular ones or Rectangular one ? or some other that I have not noticed ?
Yes... I could agree with most of what you suggest about the Colour issues varying for most of the viewers due to several factors..
Quote from: ArMaP on August 03, 2018, 11:27:42 PM
Look at this page (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?88). The images are not as good, but as it shows all the photos from that roll in sequence you can see how the Command Module was being manoeuvred for the docking.
Colour reproduction is a big problem, as is monitor calibration, so we can never know what colours other people are seeing. Besides that technical problem we also have the fact that different people see different colours, so being sure becomes even harder. I have no problem in seeing colours on that photo.
Did you folks that watched the moon landing ( I did with my dad - well, I watched something that as a 7 year old, I thought was landing on the moon etc ..) - did your Television work with valves or transistors? and was it Black and white or was it a colour TV set?
If you open a pressured can into a vacuum, what happens to the pressured can? is there an air lock ? what is the mechanism that allows egress and ingress into the LM ? ?
Quote from: fansongecho on August 04, 2018, 12:27:35 AM
is there an air lock ?
No there is no air lock... I guess they carried TONS of extra air to refill that craft every time they went in and out... :P
And how do they explain that they were able to toss out the heavy boots AFTER they were back inside?
Quotewhat is the mechanism that allows egress and ingress into the LM ? ?
No mechanism... You crawled out a little tiny hatch with that big bulky space suit and hope it didn't snag
Quote from: astr0144 on August 03, 2018, 11:57:09 AM
Nice long book as usual :P with LOTS of model pictures :P
BUT NO ONE HAS YET ADDRESSED WHY THIS CARDBOARD MODEL is supposed to have been in space :P
(http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-of-apollo-16-ascent-stage.jpg)
Yes a book of images trying to search for that Square Window that you wanted to enquire about..!
Do the Model Images and some suggested real ones offer an answer to which Window that suggested true Apollo CM Photo ArMaP found that it mayhad been taken from ?
Do you think it mayhad been thru the rectangular window ?
No one has given any comment on that as yet !
I was hoping that we may get some further input from our leaders and John as to is that a model or Spacecraft and did it actually in Space ago to tnd he Moon or are we being deceived and maybe it is just a cardboard model ? :)
Although I am sure you have done similar threads to this already...
maybe this could of interest to see if views may have altered ! ???
Quote from: zorgon on August 04, 2018, 06:25:58 AM
Nice long book as usual :P with LOTS of model pictures :P
BUT NO ONE HAS YET ADDRESSED WHY THIS CARDBOARD MODEL is supposed to have been in space :P
(http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-of-apollo-16-ascent-stage.jpg)
Quote from: zorgon on August 04, 2018, 06:25:58 AM
BUT NO ONE HAS YET ADDRESSED WHY THIS CARDBOARD MODEL is supposed to have been in space :P
(http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-of-apollo-16-ascent-stage.jpg)
its a shame. its a joke. future is here. how much further we have to go?
ty for the welcome. Things have changed. I love what we supposed to do but it is not a fair game. it never was but we take the heat anyways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM
8) 8) 8)
Proper LOL at the Z'meister comments :)
I am going to do some digging on the Lunar Rover, the pressurised gauntlets and the High Gain Antenna that was used by NASA to facilitate the remote control of the Color Camera that was fixed to the Lunar Rover.
:D
Quote from: astr0144 on August 03, 2018, 11:51:39 PM
So which Window do you think that photo would have been taken from ?
The triangular ones or Rectangular one ? or some other that I have not noticed ?
I said on the previous page, on this post (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=11034.msg144821#msg144821), the triangular left (when looking from inside the LM) window. Also, it looks like that was the one that had the Landing Point Designator.
Quote from: zorgon on August 04, 2018, 06:25:58 AM
BUT NO ONE HAS YET ADDRESSED WHY THIS CARDBOARD MODEL is supposed to have been in space :P
(http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-of-apollo-16-ascent-stage.jpg)
Could you point why it could not?
Quote from: ArMaP on August 04, 2018, 04:00:34 PM
Could you point why it could not?
If you look back at my posts you will see I have already detailed all the warped plates and dented areas.. so no I don't need to point out anything anymore..
What I NEED is someone to give an explanation of why this piece of junk looks like it does. Was it attacked by Aliens? Did it collide with something?
It supposedly simply landed on the Moon, sat there, and took off. There is supposedly no air to provide drag.
So WHY is this a total wreck? And WHY is there no answer?
So don't brush it off :P get some answers :D
I see your logic about it probably being a Left side window...
but I am not sure I can agree that it was a traingular window.... it does not sem to appear triangular..
also the Rectangular window that I indicated was on the Left hand side..
In ref to the Landing Point Designator (L P D ) shown in the other photo...and comparing it to the other photo in question of the C.M from the L.M..
The unclear part in the Right side of that Photo does not seem to match the L.P.D as I would have expected... I can see possible slight scaling in the faded questionable area of that photo... but its not seeming to be on tha actual window.. and if it is... its blanking some of the light out... where as when you look on the clear photo that shows the L.P.D.. it appears to not blank out all the windows transparancy clarity of that area..
Could the small rectangular window also have a L.P D on it ?
on a quick search it seems to only refer to the triangle window !
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/LMOperationsHandbookF1-9CDRWindow.jpg)
The scale between the two photos probably vary.. and maybe we just see part of triangular window !
Can I ask where you got the info on the LPD from ? is there a link ?
would it be this ?
(http://www.geocities.jp/rabiddogs_p64/apollo_panel_lec_28.gif)
http://www.geocities.jp/rabiddogs_p64/panelmaniacs_apollo_lm.html
What part is this ???
(http://www.geocities.jp/rabiddogs_p64/lem_phase5.gif)
and is there some monitor within the craft as shown in this middle photo ?
(http://www.geocities.jp/rabiddogs_p64/apollo_panel_lec_31.gif)
Quotefrom: astr0144 on August 03, 2018, 03:51:39 PM
So which Window do you think that photo would have been taken from ?
The triangular ones or Rectangular one ? or some other that I have not noticed ?
QuoteArMaP
I said on the previous page, on this post, the triangular left (when looking from inside the LM) window. Also, it looks like that was the one that had the Landing Point Designator.
Quote from: ArMaP on August 03, 2018, 09:45:54 PM
Those faint lines (that I first thought were part of the window shade) are the lines from the Landing Point Designator.
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lpdin.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS15-88-11963.jpg)
There were some explantions suggested !
More so in ref to the initial Acent stage L.M photo as to what some parts of it maybe and why certain parts of that may seem distorted...or appear buckled..
That it may have been due to the explosives used on Take of from the Moon...and we are seeing the underbelly of it..
I am not sure what the materials are on those parts on its underside...or if they are disigned to absorb impact and may not be metalic material...so the photos may seem like crushed cardboard ???
The photos of it being on the Moon with buckled side panels as a complete L.M.. are still questionable !
Quote from: zorgon on August 05, 2018, 03:45:53 AM
If you look back at my posts you will see I have already detailed all the warped plates and dented areas.. so no I don't need to point out anything anymore..
What I NEED is someone to give an explanation of why this piece of junk looks like it does. Was it attacked by Aliens? Did it collide with something?
It supposedly simply landed on the Moon, sat there, and took off. There is supposedly no air to provide drag.
So WHY is this a total wreck? And WHY is there no answer?
So don't brush it off :P get some answers :D
Quote from: astr0144 on August 05, 2018, 07:51:25 AM
and is there some monitor within the craft as shown in this middle photo ?
(http://www.geocities.jp/rabiddogs_p64/apollo_panel_lec_31.gif)
The Middle Photo is from the Apollo Moon movie set at Langley :P
All that is on the Apollo Reality page both on the website and the forum
The Model 3D moon and the surface tracking screen before painting The globe is 20 feet tall... the curved 'surface' has a rail system for the landing camera
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/08a9f120.jpe)
Then they painted it... in fine detail...
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/08ba0120.jpe)
Remember back then there was no photoshop... it was all done by hand with air brush and regular paint brush... They spent a LONG TIME getting details correct. They used Lunar Orbiter photos as the model...
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/08ff88b0.jpe)
Here we see the Moon and the landing track almost complete, just checking accuracy. IF this was just a training device as some suggest, there would be no need for such intricate and precise detail
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/08df88b0.jpe)
Turn out the lights and VOILA you have the moon in space (but NO STARS :P )
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/091f48e0.jpe)
OH!!! Don't forget... you need a space craft WINDOW... don't worry no one will figure out your window is just wrong LOL
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/098027c0.jpe)
Oh WAIT! We did :o :P 8)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS15-88-11963.jpg)
Still need to add that shade of Green Cheese NASA likes so much
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/099307c0.jpe)
Now sit down we are ready to fly this contraption :P
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/09a1bae0.jpe)
And how soon we all forget that we already proved that NASA deliberately makes the moon GREY SCALE in publicity photos..
WHY? Why do they need to hide the true color? Is it because it is easier to fake a landing in Black and White? :P Back then we didn't have technicolor :P
THIS Photo... Enhanced Earth and deliberately grey scaled moon In fact it was this image we discovered it on because if you zoom in bottom right the old color is still underneath
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon7/Full_Moon/ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-44-6552Small.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon7/Full_Moon/AS11_AS11-44-6552-lr.jpg)
THIS was the original
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon7/Full_Moon/ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-44-6552.JPG)
So again WHY the need to make the moon GREY SCALE? USGS did the same thing with an over enhanced Clementine Earth shot and added in the grey scale moon
This is the original Clementine Full Earth shot (proving the did have real color cameras on board :P)
(https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/clem_full_earth.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon7/Full_Moon/em_1250x375.jpg)
Thanks for posting those last two posts..
Thats a better cleaer image of the Monitor !
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/09a1bae0.jpe)
Until I came on the forum.. I had no idea about the model Moon set up that you have shown..
I rather surprised that they have released those photos under the possible circumstances of them being questioned later about such things.. if its definately been a hoax all the time..
I can understand them having a Model for certain things that they make the public aware of...as some people will consider them creating some sort of model during their planning stages..
But seeing pictures of them painting or altering images on the model...
that can make you question it ... No doubt along what you indicate...
I Now see your point about using a Grey Colour being used to show for the Moon !
and its good detective work that you have done to note the real colour of it ... if what is seem is the true colour behind the Grey Colour !
The thing that I am still questioning about the doing that... is when we look up at the Moon... we dont always see it as Grey Like Colour...
sometimes it does appear more greyish... more so in daylight... but at night on a full moon... it Does NOT appear full grey.... only parts of it are like craters and the sea areas..
when the sun light hits the moon... that we see from Earth... is surely the same colour that would be seen say by any astronaut up there... to be seen on the moon at the same time...
Once the Sun had moved out of line to shining its light on the moon... the colour would then look more grey like... as it does even from Earth.... when say the moon is 3/4s or half full for eg.. we may see some sort of shadowing effects on edges that appear more grey like..
so are they really fooling the public...thou !
Yes that image that shows the Earth... does prove they had or used Colour cameras..
The Other big question that I hope we get to discuss further... is was their any chance of having enough fuel in the 3rd stage of Apollo to have travelled to the moon...
and my answer would be YES... IF they had been able to send up other Unmanned space Crafts that took photos on the back of the moon prior to man or astronauts being suggested as travelling to the Moon ...
Would the van allen Radiation belt issue prevent an unmanned flight ? even if did effect humans...
did it effect the electronics ?
Quote from: zorgon on August 05, 2018, 09:24:32 AM
This is the original Clementine Full Earth shot (proving the did have real color cameras on board :P)
You mean they had colour cameras on the un-manned Apollo orbiter/lander?
Quote from: petrus4 on July 27, 2018, 01:18:52 PM
You won't get any argument from me about how NASA's (public, at least) craft are rubbish, Zorgon.
This quote sums it up for me. :)
QuoteIn the final picture shown below we take a closer look at this supposedly high quality work from Grumman Engineering, and can see just what a botch job that made of it. NASA inform us that this piece of junk cost $350,000,000, (over $25 billion at todays prices). Look at the angle strip on corner edges, they cannot even get the beading strip angle correct, and have left it jutting out. I don't think NASA is taking the p**s, I know they are. It's a joke, because I have seen better quality work from kindergarten kids building a stage prop for pantomime. Lets face it the whole Apollo project was a pantomime and the Apollo astronauts were nothing more than clowns, but it beggars belief that there are still millions of people around the globe who actually believe the garbage put out by NASA. I find it somewhat scary to think that there are so many people in the world who are completely out of touch with reality.
See above for source...
ETA: And you could send any old tin can for an unmanned landing. Why? Because you would not need life support or a return journey and it would not have to be equipped for re-entry to the atmosphere.
Quote from: zorgon on August 05, 2018, 03:45:53 AM
If you look back at my posts you will see I have already detailed all the warped plates and dented areas.. so no I don't need to point out anything anymore..
Detailing all the warped plates and dented areas doesn't explain why you think it couldn't be in space, and that's what your "is supposed to have been in space" sounds like to me.
QuoteWhat I NEED is someone to give an explanation of why this piece of junk looks like it does. Was it attacked by Aliens? Did it collide with something?
It supposedly simply landed on the Moon, sat there, and took off. There is supposedly no air to provide drag.
So WHY is this a total wreck? And WHY is there no answer?
It's not a total wreck, the important parts look normal.
QuoteSo don't brush it off :P get some answers :D
I'm not brushing it of, I only look for answers to specific questions, that's why I was (and am) questioning your "is supposed to have been in space" statement, as the way it looks made it impossible for it to be in space.
Quote from: ArMaP on August 05, 2018, 02:28:42 PM
I only look for answers to specific questions, that's why I was (and am) questioning your "is supposed to have been in space" statement, as the way it looks made it impossible for it to be in space.
Perhaps it was in space without any humans on board.
Quote from: zorgon on August 05, 2018, 08:33:56 AM
Here we see the Moon and the landing track almost complete, just checking accuracy. IF this was just a training device as some suggest, there would be no need for such intricate and precise detail
No need? I think just the opposite. Going on this flight as proposed, I think you'd want to train on the most detailed map possible. Of course not disputing your statement about the window. But I would want to train, train, train.
Quote from: astr0144 on August 05, 2018, 07:51:25 AM
I see your logic about it probably being a Left side window...
but I am not sure I can agree that it was a traingular window.... it does not sem to appear triangular..
Perspective does that. :)
Quotealso the Rectangular window that I indicated was on the Left hand side..
That's irrelevant, as I think it was the triangular window on the left, not the docking window.
QuoteThe unclear part in the Right side of that Photo does not seem to match the L.P.D as I would have expected... I can see possible slight scaling in the faded questionable area of that photo... but its not seeming to be on tha actual window.. and if it is... its blanking some of the light out... where as when you look on the clear photo that shows the L.P.D.. it appears to not blank out all the windows transparancy clarity of that area..
Something etched on a window glass will always change the way the light passes through that window, but it also changes the way the light reflects on the window pane. The photos that show the LPD well have light shining from inside the module, so the light reflects on the LPD. The photo showing the CM has the light coming from the outside, so etching on the window pane (on both the outside and inside glasses) blocks the light a little.
QuoteCould the small rectangular window also have a L.P D on it ?
I doubt it had an LPD, as the idea of the LPD was to aid the landing. It's possible that it had a similar thing to help the docking.
QuoteCan I ask where you got the info on the LPD from ? is there a link ?
would it be this ?
It's possible, I don't remember, I have to check my browser's history. :)
QuoteWhat part is this ???
(http://www.geocities.jp/rabiddogs_p64/lem_phase5.gif)
I don't know.
Quoteand is there some monitor within the craft as shown in this middle photo ?
(http://www.geocities.jp/rabiddogs_p64/apollo_panel_lec_31.gif)
I have no idea, but I doubt it.
Quote from: zorgon on August 05, 2018, 08:33:56 AM
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/AS15-88-11963.jpg)
I think your biggest problem is that sometimes you think your opinions are facts. The fact that
you think the window is wrong doesn't mean that it really is, and if you don't see how perspective and framing of the photo can make an acute angle of a triangular window look like a square angle from a rectangular window then I think you need to study a little geometry, specially projections.[/quote]
All the pictures of the inside of the windows show window frames and rivets/bolts This picture shows NOTHING of the interior of the craft. Please explain to me how any amount of 'perspective' removes all traces of the interior of the craft like window frames.
And no... no acute angle can make that triangular window with the markings on it look like a rectangle with no part of the interior of the craft showing
Quote from: zorgon on August 05, 2018, 09:24:32 AM
And how soon we all forget that we already proved that NASA deliberately makes the moon GREY SCALE in publicity photos..
I didn't forget it, I have seen other cases like that, and that's one of the reasons I prefer that site I mention a few pages back, as their photos always look the same.
QuoteWHY? Why do they need to hide the true color? Is it because it is easier to fake a landing in Black and White? :P Back then we didn't have technicolor :P
We did, technicolor is a much older movie process.
QuoteThis is the original Clementine Full Earth shot (proving the did have real color cameras on board :P)
(https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/clem_full_earth.jpg)
It doesn't prove they did had real colour cameras (whatever that may mean), as they did not, they had five different filters (415nm, 750nm, 900nm, 950nm, and 1000nm) for one of the cameras (the UV/Vis camera, if I'm not mistaken), and with those filters we can get colour images, but not real colours, in the same way we don't get real colours from HiRISE or other missions, we only get approximate colours after adjusting the values from some of the filters.
Quote from: astr0144 on August 05, 2018, 10:09:33 AM
Thanks for posting those last two posts..
Thats a better cleaer image of the Monitor !
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/09a1bae0.jpe)
Until I came on the forum.. I had no idea about the model Moon set up that you have shown..
Now that I looked better at that photo I could see it's a Rover simulator, so it was not (as zorgon's comment appears to imply) an CM or LM simulator.
QuoteI rather surprised that they have released those photos under the possible circumstances of them being questioned later about such things.. if its definately been a hoax all the time..
If they had nothing to hide they had no problem in publishing those photos. Any photos that showed things they didn't want to show could be left unknown of the public, as it probably happened.
QuoteBut seeing pictures of them painting or altering images on the model...
that can make you question it ... No doubt along what you indicate...
I Now see your point about using a Grey Colour being used to show for the Moon !
Seriously, I don't think anyone with two (or even just one) good eyes and a functioning brain can think that that model was able to provide the photos we have, the detail on the model was only good for locating features, it was not enough to provide the images we have.
QuoteYes that image that shows the Earth... does prove they had or used Colour cameras..
Clementine is a 1994 mission, the first (as far as I know) to use a digital camera with a CCD sensor.
QuoteWould the van allen Radiation belt issue prevent an unmanned flight ? even if did effect humans...
did it effect the electronics ?
Today's electronics are much more affected than older electronics, as their smaller size makes them easier to be affected by charged particles. A charged particle on an old style transistor would hit just part of it, on today's transistors it could as big as the transistor itself.
Quote from: astr0144 on August 05, 2018, 08:19:08 AM
There were some explantions suggested !
More so in ref to the initial Acent stage L.M photo as to what some parts of it maybe and why certain parts of that may seem distorted...or appear buckled..
That it may have been due to the explosives used on Take of from the Moon...and we are seeing the underbelly of it..
I think that's the more likely explanation, specially when watching the video of the lift-off from the Moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUgKprYiu6E
I don't think they used explosive to lift off. I remember them talking about an engine with a valve that they just opened up and it fired the engine. That's a really rough explanation but it was something like that. I'm sure someone will correct me on this matter.
You seem to make a lot of possible valid points ArMaP.
thats been quite a lot to research !
May need to ponder on some of them, as somethings I am still unsure about or just dont know enough to question it further
Yes it does appear that Monitor is something to do with the Lunar Rover vehicle..
I have now noted that the webpage for that image referred to LRV...
I think you are right Sgt...
Although I am not sure if they may have also used some sort of explosive bolts as well maybe to break the two stages of the LM apart, around the same time as the Rocket engine lifted the LEM asent stage to take off from the left behind Descent stage..
I think that they used some sort of explosive bolts when the Initial Apollo Saturn V took off from Earth to break away from the support framing and later break apart the other rockets stages... I was think maybe they used explosives to split or break apart the two L.M stages as it lifted of from the moon..
QuoteThe Lunar Module detached itself from its legs and its descent engine via explosive bolts and guillotines to cut the cables, and started up its ascent engine
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Apollo-11-get-back-to-Earth-once-they-got-there
Yes it would have had to have had something to lift it off from the Moon to propell it back to the Command Module...
Explosives alone would not lift it enough or direct it back to the CM...in the way that we would expect.. without some sort of engine or thrust propulsion..
I tried to find some info on this but so far I have only found some basic information that seems to suggest what you say.
What I have found comes in the following..
On other diagrams that I had posted of the Lunar Module.. They make it obvious that there was an engine for the LM ascent stage... but one image referred to a engine cover..
but it does not show the actual Ascent stage engine...Its however show an engine for the Descent stage..at the lower part..
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/LM_illustration_02.jpg)
Luckily I found this image that does show the Ascent Stage engine on the Lunar Module as described as Engine 2 in the diagram.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cc05a33cc7e836fcee8b3d9b0e9e82d8)
QuoteAscent stage
The Ascent stage contained the crew cabin with instrument panels and flight controls. It contained its own Ascent Propulsion System (APS) engine and two hypergolic propellant tanks for return to lunar orbit and rendezvous with the Apollo Command/Service Module. It also contained a Reaction Control System (RCS) for attitude and translation control, which consisted of sixteen hypergolic thrusters similar to those used on the Service Module, mounted in four quads, with their own propellant supply
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Apollo_Lunar_Module_Ascent_Engine.jpg/250px-Apollo_Lunar_Module_Ascent_Engine.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascent_Propulsion_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 06, 2018, 01:51:59 AM
I don't think they used explosive to lift off. I remember them talking about an engine with a valve that they just opened up and it fired the engine. That's a really rough explanation but it was something like that. I'm sure someone will correct me on this matter.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 05, 2018, 03:14:50 PMI think you'd want to But I would want to train, train, train.
ONLY if you were actually GOING to the Moon :P
Quote from: Pimander on August 05, 2018, 01:15:00 PM
You mean they had colour cameras on the un-manned Apollo orbiter/lander?
When I say Clementine I mean Clementine I do not Mean Apollo orbiter/lander
Clementine was a US NAVY mission, NASA only did mission control
The Apollo Astronauts had Hassalblad 120 cameras and yes those were color also
Quote from: astr0144 on August 05, 2018, 08:19:08 AM
There were some explantions suggested !
That it may have been due to the explosives used on Take of from the Moon...and we are seeing the underbelly of it..
By the GODS You got it!!! :o 8) ::)
Yup they blew the thing back into space with explosives... that were special explosives that didn't puncture the thin shell of the module with the AstroNots inside :P
Quote from: astr0144 on August 06, 2018, 05:58:03 AMhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/LM_illustration_02.jpg
Hmmm Interesting picture...
Please show me on that drawing where they parked THIS
(http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/image-of-LRV-test-vehicle.jpg)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 06, 2018, 01:51:59 AM
I don't think they used explosive to lift off. I remember them talking about an engine with a valve that they just opened up and it fired the engine. That's a really rough explanation but it was something like that. I'm sure someone will correct me on this matter.
Yes they did not use explosives :P We are not that good at making directional charges that are guaranteed to work right :P
Apollo 17 LM Ascent StageQuoteThe Ascent Propulsion System (APS) or Lunar Module Ascent Engine (LMAE) is a fixed-thrust hypergolic rocket engine developed by Bell Aerosystems for use in the Apollo Lunar Module Ascent Stage. It used Aerozine 50 fuel, and N2O4 oxidizer. Rocketdyne provided the injector system, at the request of NASA, when Bell could not solve combustion instability problems
During the spring of 1963, Grumman hired Bell to develop the Lunar Module ascent engine, on the assumption that Bell's experience in development of the Air Force Agena engine would be transferable to the Lunar Module requirements. Grumman placed heavy emphasis upon high reliability through simplicity of design, and the ascent engine emerged as the least complicated of the three main engines in the Apollo space vehicle, including the LM descent and CSM service propulsion system engines.
Embodying a pressure-fed fuel system using hypergolic (self-igniting) propellants, the ascent engine was fixed-thrust and nongimbaled, capable of lifting the ascent stage off the Moon or aborting a landing if necessary.
The engine developed about 3,500 pounds-force (16 kN) of thrust, which produced a velocity of 2,000 meters per second from lunar launch,[citation needed] to LOR, and CM docking.[1] It weighed 180 pounds (81.6 kg), with a length of 47 inches (119.4 cm) and diameter of 34 inches (86.4 cm).
According to the Science Channel's documentary Moon Machines, the fuel and oxidizer were so corrosive that the engines had to be rebuilt after each firing. This meant that each ascent from the Moon was performed with an engine that had not been test-fired prior to flight.
Well Since NASA never actually went to the moon (and forgot how they did anyway :P ) it seems they revamped these rockets for the new attempts
QuoteRS-18 Engine
Rocketdyne brought the Lunar Module Ascent Engine (LMAE) out of its 36-year retirement, now designated as RS-18, and reconfigured this non-throttleable hypergolic engine to use LOX/Methane for NASA Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) engine testing in 2008.
So IF they went to the moon and EVERY landing was PERFECT and FLAWLESS
WHY do they need to reinvent the moon lander?
Poor thing is whimpering in pain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM1wjs5nWXQ
OH and speaking about practice :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkIwHkwh3Ws
The Technical Record of the Apollo Program? A Space Junkyard
At 4:55 when Buzz was asked could this have worked he says "Yeah it could have been tested" :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxc7YV2QXzA
NASA Admits "LOSING" All Moon Landing Data [Original Version] | FYM ARCHIVES(Ignore the flat eart overlays LOL )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnzZyA3JdFk
The Saga Of the Lost Space Tapes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013002065.html?noredirect=on
'One small step for man,' 700-box tape loss for NASA
The tapes also contain data about the health of the astronauts and the condition of the spacecraft. In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing, he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0...eut/index.html
When we say "tapes" we are talking 120 MM and 35 MM tapes 14 inches in diameter like THESE
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Apollo/Tapes_001.png)
All here...
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/41Group_Lunar_FYEO/02files/FYEO_Lunar_12.html
BBC Apollo 11 Missing Tapes
Sir Patrick Moore
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moore/Sir_Patrick_Moore.jpg)
Moore has undertaken significant research in astronomy. It was revealed in a TV programme that when the Russians wanted accurate information on the Moon over a number of years, they first went to America then other countries for the information but could not turn it up. Then someone suggested Patrick Moore and on going to his house and asking him, they were invited in. Moore left them and returned with a pile of exercise books with all the necessary information in, his records of observations over many years which is how in 1959, the Soviet Union used his charts of the moon to correlate their first pictures of the far side with his mapped features on the near side and he was involved in the lunar mapping used by the NASA Apollo space missions. In 1965, he was appointed Director of the newly-constructed Armagh Planetarium, a post he held until 1968. During the Apollo programme, he was one of the presenters of BBC television's coverage of the moon landing missions. The tapes of these broadcasts no longer exist: conflicting stories have circulated as to what precisely happened to them, or whether the broadcasts were recorded at all.
SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA
Sir Patrick Moore (RIP) was there at the Apollo 11 debriefing... asked them about seeing stars on the moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 06, 2018, 01:51:59 AM
I'm sure someone will correct me on this matter.
There was a REASON that SYSGOD invented Google Search :P
:o
::)
8)
NASA SCIENTIST SAYS:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDBBUwdyz4I
Sgt R&R made a ref to question use of explosives and referred to the LM having an engine... which I replied to in this link which I think you referred to as you relate to one of the LM images..
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=11034.msg144952#msg144952
As I understand it NASA suggested that they used explosive bolts and a Ascent Engine.
I have no idea how the explosive bolts may effect the LM ascent stage if they did use them on LM take off..
QuoteZorgon ref to Sgt RR
Yes they did not use explosives :P We are not that good at making directional charges that are guaranteed to work right :P
and as I said before.. I dont know what materials that they may have used at the bottom of the Lunar Module Ascent stage... Is there some sort of Heat shield that is made out of non metallic material that is maybe flexible.. is the only explanation that I could offer for seeing the buckling..That may absorb the shock...or maybe used to try to avoid any fire damage on certain areas..if fire can develop in outer space around the craft ! ???
But maybe the engine on those pictures is not shown...
if thats the case, then thats for further investigation ?
which when looking again is not seeming to be shown..
The only possibilty is that it maybe being shielded / covered over by what ever that buckled material is if say it was designed to flex over the lower side of the under carrage of the Ascent Stage LM after take off..
and I have to admitt what they show in the image seems very weird..
either way.. ..even if its done as a hoax.. they appear to have done a poor job on making it look more realistic by being more solid like...or appearing legit !
It maybe that this actual image is not real... and could there be other images that may show diferent , maybe even used on other missions ?
We are only seeing one image of several missions they we were led to believe have occurred.. so really I would have to see other similar images of the LM ascent stage from other missions also, to see if they appear similar !
but I have a feeling those maybe hard to find..
I JUST FOUND THIS ...which I am unable to copy the images ..
THIS SHOWS WHAT Materials were used for th heat shield on part of the Command Module that could have been similar... its like a fibreglass/ nylon/ aluminium thermal blanket.. I think this is used more on reentry thru the Earths atmosphere.
QuoteTHERMAL PROTECTION (HEAT SHIELDS)
The interior of the command module must be
protected from the extremes of environment that
will be encountered during a mission. These include
the heat of boost (up to 1200°F), the cold of space
and the heat of the direct rays of the sun (about
280° below zero on the side facing away from the
sun and 280° above zero on the other side), andmost
critical-the intense temperatures of entry(about 5000°F).
Heat shields
CREW COMPARTMENT
HEAT SHIELD
The heat of launch is absorbed principally through
the boost protective cover, a fiberglass structure
covered with cork which fits over the command
module like a glove. The boost protective cover
weighs about 700 pounds and varies in thickness
from about 3/10 of an inch to about 7/8 of an
inch (at the top). The cork is covered with a white
reflective coating. The cover is permanently attached
to the launch escape tower and is jettisoned with it
at approximately 295,000 feet during a normal
mission.
The insulation between the inner and outer shells,
plus temperature control provided by the environmental
control subsystem, protects the crew and
sensitive equipment during the CM's long journey in
space.
The principal task of the heat shield that forms the
outer structure is to protect the crew from the fiery
heat of entry-heat so intense that it melts most
metals. The ablative material that does this job is a
phenolic epoxy resin, a type of reinforced plastic
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM06_Command_Module_Overview_pp39-52.pdf
(http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-of-apollo-16-ascent-stage.jpg)
This is the only image that I have found so far that shows where the ascent engine is supposed to be... The engine is in the middle of the higher section to the left of the blue like round ball...that is one of the fuel tanks.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cc05a33cc7e836fcee8b3d9b0e9e82d8)
I did notice this and It does make it seem too risky for any astronaut to want to consider you would think !
I surpose one arguement would be.. Astonauts like Neil Armstrong was shown to be taking huge risks testing the LM on Earth..he could have easiy been killed during testing several times..
QuoteZorgon
According to the Science Channel's documentary Moon Machines, the fuel and oxidizer were so corrosive that the engines had to be rebuilt after each firing. This meant that each ascent from the Moon was performed with an engine that had not been test-fired prior to flight.
Quotefrom: astr0144 on August 05, 2018, 12:19:08 AM
There were some explantions suggested !
That it may have been due to the explosives used on Take of from the Moon...and we are seeing the underbelly of it..
Quote
By the GODS You got it!!! :o 8) ::)
Yup they blew the thing back into space with explosives... that were special explosives that didn't puncture the thin shell of the module with the AstroNots inside :P
I assume that diagram drawing is for one of the LMs before the Lunar Rover was used...
In the earlier missions they did not use Lunar Rovers from Apollo 11 to 14..
They used it from Apollo 15 onwards to 17.. around 1971 / 72
QuoteThe Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) or lunar rover is a battery-powered four-wheeled rover used on the Moon in the last three missions of the American Apollo program (15, 16, and 17) during 1971 and 1972. It was popularly known as "moon buggy", a play on the words "dune buggy".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle
Quote from: zorgon on August 06, 2018, 09:29:56 AM
Hmmm Interesting picture...
Please show me on that drawing where they parked THIS
(http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/image-of-LRV-test-vehicle.jpg)
This offers some suggestions for how they took the Lunar Rover to the Moon via LM..
http://www.collectspace.com//ubb/Forum29/HTML/000731.html
(http://collectspace.com/review/ap15-KSC-71P-206.jpg)
(http://collectspace.com/review/ap15-S71-31409.jpg)
(http://collectspace.com/review/mikej/lrv-deployment.jpg)
Whether they did or did not go to the Moon...
what they did do was still an amazing job engineering and Science wise IMO..
when you see these sort of images...
I think even if they created everything to go to the moon, if that was actually possible..or to hoax it...was an amazing challenge alone
BUT To then actually put all that to the test.. and actually go there and land a man on the moon and for them to survive come back ... would have been truely incredible..
I agree to do all that is numerous times more of a challenge than creating it all..
and if they did do it... It would have been totally amazing the more you think about it and what is required to do so..
In some ways the more you look into things.. the harder it all seems to have been...so you can question that challenge to consider disbeliving it as being possible on the complexities to be able to achieve it alone.
Quote from: zorgon on August 06, 2018, 09:05:18 AM
ONLY if you were actually GOING to the Moon :P
I think they trained the Apollo 11 crew and didn't tell them they were not really going until the last minute. That would explain why they looked so shocked and confused when they got back and everyone (even Patrick Moore) didn't question it. ;)
It amazes me that people are convinced they went still. Cognitive dissonance in my opinion. The landings and return journeys were faked. To me it is not even a particularly convincing fake. The astronauts look like they are lying because they are. They look guilty because they are.
I figure we have two options to believe. We either believe they went, or we don't. I wasn't there, in any case, so I can't play eye witness to what happened. I think incontrovertible evidence on way or another will be released some day.
Why does the ascent stage of Apollo 11's lunar module look like it's made of paper?
HAS ANYONE CONSIDERED THAT THEY MAY HAVE ALSO TOOK PHOTOS ON THE LUNAR MODULE IN A STAGE SETTING ON EARTH TO LOOK LIKE THE MOON..and they could this also prior to going to the Moon...if they also did go !
or they could have had TWO... one on a stage at NASA that mayhave been a flimsy model..and the other in the Apollo Saturn V Rocket..
So that also could explain such questionable images...
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCx8x.jpg)
QuoteUpon close inspection one might notice that the Lunar Lander, a supposed six billion dollar hallmark of American engineering, is in truth made out of cardboard paper, a few old curtain rods, a roll of roofing paper, some floodlight holders, gold foil, and lots and lots of scotch tape to hold it all together on the hostile environment of the moon's surface.
This give some possible further explanations to what the buckled material may have been if it is some sort of heat shield or insulation material..
QuoteLike everything else, the ascent and descent stages were built to be as light as possible. But because they knew they would operate only in a vacuum, many things really didn't need to be sturdy, nor did the shape of it matter. It would never have to deal with aerodynamic drag. In fact, the descent stage was designed to buckle in the right places upon landing, that was how it absorbed the impact. It was only going to be used once, this was the most weight-efficient method of handling the shock of landing.
Also, the complex insulation blankets covering the module had many layers, and contact points between the layers needed to be minimized so that heat wouldn't be passed through them by conduction. The black material is where thin Inconel sheets formed the outer layer of the insulation blanket, and they were painted matte black with Pyromark paint to improve their heat emission properties, so they would cool off quickly. (Black material both absorbs and emits heat better than material of other colors.) Beneath the black layer were reflective layers to prevent the heat of the black layer penetrating into the module. This treatment was done where the exhaust of the reaction control thrusters heated the lunar modules. It had a tendency to crinkle, and on this particular module, that may have been accentuated by the fact it was in fact installed at the last minute, as were the chutes under the thrusters. From the Lunar Module Coatings Page:
A few months before flight, shock tunnel tests using a new thruster duty cycle revealed that the Pyromark painted Inconel lay-ups on the upper sides of the Descent Stage quads would not be sufficient protection against the hot plumes. A crash program to design a fix resulted in "coal chute" plume deflectors mounted below the down-firing jets. These were installed on LM 5 while it was on the pad, just before launch.
Another last minute thermal fix added 39 pounds of Kapton and Pyromark painted Inconel to the landing gear, pads and probe. One of the reasons for this added weight was a crew request(!) that they be allowed to keep the engine on past probe contact to pad touchdown. This would result in greater heating from the engine plume as it reflected off the lunar surface past the gear.
Considering the vast ambition of going to the Moon for the first time, it isn't surprising some fixes were last-minute.
The foil is Kapton MLI (multi-layer insulation) blankets, and it is actually pretty complex. In the places on the lunar modules that only needed to be a heat barrier to sunlight, high reflectivity was the most efffective approach, and those places are the shiny amber color of the Kapton. As there is no air in space to pass heat by convection, if you lower absorption of heat radiation by making surfaces that are highly reflective or emissive, and there are few contact points to pass heat by conduction, insulation can be highly effective. With the Kapton foil blankets, the contact points were reduced by hand-crinkling an inner layer of the blanket. From the Apollo News Reference:
To make an even more effective insulation, the polymide sheets are hand crinkled before blanket fabrication. This crinkling provides a path for venting, and minimizes contact conductance between the layers.
So, this is bound to make the outer layer rather uneven.
All the other covering material you see is also just there to protect whatever is underneath from the effects of sunlight. Perhaps they were also thinking a bit about keeping dust out. That is all it has to do, and it was made merely sufficient for that job. Weight savings were more important than looks. The fancy stuff is underneath all those bare-bones panels.
I found a different photo of the lander that gives a better sense of the complexity of it. The photo shows the Ascent Stage in the process of assembly, before the heat shielding had been put on it:
These are some more images of the LM but they look different to the one on question..
maybe some imagess are of later versions..
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/2Icj4.jpg)
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/o8hnx.jpg)
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-pap
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-paper
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-18.jpg)
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-11.jpg)
You can see the Engine underneath the Ascent Lunar Module on this photo..
and what seems like similar flexy or buckled materials(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/view-of-the-ascent-stage-of-the-apollo-9-lunar-module-as-it-prepares-picture-id611367587?s=594x594)
This shows a slightly different but similar photo to the Bucked Ascent LM..that does not seem quite as buckled as the other one in question !
but it does look like carboard or some sort of paper.
and this seems a side view not an underbelly view as you can see the engine thrust booster sticking out below...
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7100/7008828495_7b0507f25a.jpg)
I am not sure about this photo.... its suggested its a LM for Apollo 9...
it looks like a similar image above but inversed..
(http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/image-of-Apollo-9-Lunar_Module_Ascent_Stage.jpg)
http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-module-everything-you-need-to-know.html
check this link out.... Its show some further questionable similar LM buckled photos..
and how model makers are relating to them...need to scroll down a bit to see them
Have Model makers made some of the questionable Images I wonder ?
(http://i.imgur.com/zQd0B1o.jpg)
and used photo shop for the moons background ? ???
It seems that that there are various options that maybe difficult to prove !
(http://i.imgur.com/m89egME.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/NBpwIER.jpg)
https://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?page=13&t=171614
Van Allen radiation belt. (V.A.R.B)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Van_Allen_Belts.ogv/800px--Van_Allen_Belts.ogv.jpg)
I believe that there have been many a post about the Van Allen radiation belt. and did it stop Astronauts going to the moon in the Apollo days in the late 1960s early 1970s.
I found a video posted below that gives some suggestions and information and details of the theory.. and what types of radiation are involved and how they may have got around the problem..
Its suggested that they could avoid the worst parts of it by going around the most regions.. and they claim the would have only been in it for upto 6 hrs and claim that as short term and it suggests that it would not have harmed them too much..It also suggests that there was certain protections on the Craft against it..
The radiation is said to be mainly a combination of Electro magnetic and charged particles. The Worst radiation I assume would have been from Gamma like rays..that would normally require quite thick lead shielding..that would make the Spacecraft very heavy.
But most other forms of radiation and charged particles could have been protected by other forms of shielding.
I am not too sure how the electonics may have been effected or protected...back then..
I dont doubt there is a lot of theory on P.R.C to challenge all this !
but I think the video does offer some good background and theory to it..and maybe some parts are valid..
Maybe they can now go around or avoid a large main part of the V.A.R.B today...
but they may not have known how to back in the Apollo days in the 1970s..
QuoteA Van Allen radiation belt is a zone of energetic charged particles, most of which originate from the solar wind, that are captured by and held around a planet by that planet's magnetic field. The Earth has two such belts and sometimes others may be temporarily created. The discovery of the belts is credited to James Van Allen, and as a result the Earth's belts are known as the Van Allen belts. Earth's two main belts extend from an altitude of about 500 to 58,000 kilometers[1] above the surface in which region radiation levels vary. Most of the particles that form the belts are thought to come from solar wind and other particles by cosmic rays.[2] By trapping the solar wind, the magnetic field deflects those energetic particles and protects the Earth's atmosphere from destruction.
The belts are located in the inner region of the Earth's magnetosphere. The belts trap energetic electrons and protons. Other nuclei, such as alpha particles, are less prevalent. The belts endanger satellites, which must have their sensitive components protected with adequate shielding if they spend significant time in that zone. In 2013, NASA reported that the Van Allen Probes had discovered a transient, third radiation belt, which was observed for four weeks until it was destroyed by a powerful, interplanetary shock wave from the Sun.[3]
Implications for space travelQuoteSpacecraft travelling beyond low Earth orbit enter the zone of radiation of the Van Allen belts. Beyond the belts, they face additional hazards from cosmic rays and solar particle events. A region between the inner and outer Van Allen belts lies at two to four Earth radii and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[28][29]
Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[30] A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,190 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year (for comparison, a full-body dose of 5 Sv is deadly). Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[31]
The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[32] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, and only passed through the thinner areas of the outer belts.[25][33]
Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Van_Allen_radiation_belt.svg/500px-Van_Allen_radiation_belt.svg.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Rendering_of_Van_Allen_radiation_belts_of_Earth_2.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiscigIgBc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
HHHHmmmmm... it looks like the NASA Scientist in the YT video below, didn't attend the NASA Lecture about how to penetrate and survive the Van Allen Radiation Belts with the Apollo Missions, it may save a lot of time and public money if he gets stuck with his experiments for the Orion Space Program .. say whuut Kelly ?? :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O5dPsu66Kw at 3:20;ish.. ;D ;D
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-premieres-trial-by-fire-video-on-orion-s-flight-test :P
cheers! ;D ;D
Quote from: fansongecho on August 10, 2018, 06:47:10 PM
HHHHmmmmm... it looks like the NASA Scientist in the YT video below, didn't attend the NASA Lecture about how to penetrate and survive the Van Allen Radiation Belts with the Apollo Missions, it may save a lot of time and public money if he gets stuck with his experiments for the Orion Space Program .. say whuut Kelly ?? :o
That's why I ignore that "public relations" side of science so popular in the US, as they present things as if they were more interested in making things impressive than on truth and reality. First, they present the problem as if it was impossible to solve, making it worse than it is, then they present the solution as if it was some kind of great discovery.
That video looks made by the History Channel, and that's not a good thing.
The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[32] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, and only passed through the thinner areas of the outer belts.
Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.
Hmm so I guess that wasn't a big deal after all?
Or maybe that was just info from NASA I guess and I should ignore it? ;D ;)
@Sgt Rocknroll, sure they posted that information?.. I don't know if they did or did not, because when it comes to finding hard data about the Apollo missions and technology off NASA it is at best misleading and at worse, missing. :o
So as I promised a few weeks ago I would look into the Lunar Rover and its Colour Camera and Video down link to Planet Earth, and the technology that supported the Camera - so I have created the following document, that I have pinged out to a very large group of engineers who have worked directly with for years and decades 60s, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000 - specifically military Satellite Secure Earth-2-Satellite-Earth Real-Time data/video/voice communications. 8)
Using the scant data I can glean from NASA, Wiki and Google searches as relate to the Moon Missions that the Lunar Rover was deployed and operated on. ::)
I pinged this out today and I am awaiting the response from that group. 8)
"SNIP"
Hi Folks, are there any Sat Comms tech/gurus on here who can help me with a few questions I have about Video Down-Links and Data Uplinks for a very, (very) long distance Point-2-Point Solution please?
I am researching the Apollo Lunar Landing, and Lunar Rover history, and several questions have reared their heads, and I am hoping that folks with a background in Satellite Communications will be able to help me on my quest if possible.
The Engineering requirements are detailed below.
There is an engineering requirement to provide a robust technical solution for a Real-time Colour Video (NTSC Video Standard) transmission down-link, with a Real-time Data Command, and Control UP-Link between Point-2-Point Sites A and B.
Site A will be providing the Real-Time Colour Video Link, and Site B will be providing the Real-Time Command and Control Data Uplinks for Pan/Tilt and Slew Commands to the Colour Camera at Site A.
The Colour Camera is located on a mobile vehicle that has a maximum speed of 8 Mile per hour and when moving will be travelling at an average speed of 5 Miles per hour. Although there will be periods when the vehicle is stationary.
This solution will be using solid state technology from the late 1960s and early 1970's.
Site A distance from Site B is on average 238, 855 miles –
Although Site A will be at a minimum of 223,034 miles from Site B, and a Maximum of 252,504 miles during the scheduled period of Video Transmission / Data Uplink.
Full Duplex transmissions between site A and site B are required and will be LOS.{Line Od Sight}
Project Constraints –
Budget – There are no budget constraints, for example the mobile vehicle will eventually cost $38,000,000 USD in design/development and deployment.{Lunar Rover}
Environment Constraints at Site A –
(All Site A equipment will be operated in a vacuum)
(Radio Transmissions delay period is between 1.2 seconds and 1.5 depending on the distance between Sites A and B during the expected operational period)
Temperature Constraints - Site A Electronic Hardware.
Electronic equipment cooling and heating:
All electronic units will be expected to function robustly, and consistently in an ambient temperature environment, ranging from + 250 F in daylight to -251 F in the dark/shade and will be expected to operate correctly when exposed to instantaneous differentials in temperature, ranging from seconds to minutes.
Temperature Constraints at Site A - Colour Camera
The camera has to be designed to survive extreme temperature differences on the lunar surface, ranging from 121 °C (250 °F) in daylight to −157 °C (−251 °F) in the shade.[10] Another requirement is to be able to keep the power to approximately 7 watts, and fit the signal into the narrow bandwidth on the mobile unit S-band antenna, which will be much smaller and less powerful than the Service Module's antenna."
Technical Constraints Site A – Electrical Power for the Satellite, and associated S Band Transmitter and Receiver will be provided by battery packs that must be able to operate for a maximum of 60 minutes when fully operational.
Operational Constraints at Site A = There will be periods where the Up and Down links are not available, due to Site B's periodic rotation which will create a blind area for an extended period 6 – 8 hours.
Technical Constraints at Site A and B = We will implement the solution(s) using late 1960's and early 1970's solid state electronics.
There are no other Project Operational, Technical, or Financial Constraints at Site B.
Request for Comments -
RFC 1.0 Solution recommendations – Site A, Uplink TX Frequency is S Band.
What is the minimum effective radiated power output required to broadcast over a S band Frequency Satellite solution a Colour NTSC Video Standard Signal in real time, to Site B, and to ensure robust, effective and consistent Video & Data streaming, with the knowledge that Site A and Site B will have a maximum distance apart of 252,504 miles.
RFC 1.1 - Solution recommendations - What would the effective minimum Beamwidth for a S Band Satellite Transmission of a NTSC Standard Colour TV Broadcast, from the A Site to the B site?
RFC 1.2 - What size radiated footprint would be required to ensure that the A site to B site, full duplex uplink/downlinks were robust & effective, at both A and B sites?
RFC 1.3 - What would be the effective maximum Beam width for a S Band Satellite, for the Site A Colour Video real-time down-link?
RFC 1.4 - What would be the minimum S Band Satellite Receiver sensitivity at the A Site, for receiving data commands to pan/tilt/slew the Camera on the mobile unit?
RFC 1.5 - What would be the minimum S Band Satellite Channel Separation be for the, FULL-Duplex A Site Video Down-link, and B site Command and Control Uplinks?
RFC 1.6 - What is the minimum effective radiated power output required to broadcast a S band frequency Satellite solution of the Colour NTSC Video Standard Signal in real time to Site B?
RFC 1.7 - What would be the minimum S Band Satellite Transmission bandwidth for the real-time live NTSC colour TV broadcast from Site A to Site B?
RFC 1.8 - What encoding would be required at the A side of the Colour Video transmission?
RFC 1.9 - What decoding would be required at the A side of the for the real time command and control signals, pan, tilt and slew remote camera commands?
RFC 2.0 - What TX and RX signal polarisation would be employed at the A Site?
RFC 2.1 - What is the minimum sized S band Parabolic dish antenna size required to support the Video transmission from site A, and receive data command and control signals in real time from Site B?
RFC 2.2 - Using late 60's, early 70's technology, what would be the Power Supply requirements for the S band transmitter / receiver at site A, with only batteries with a life of 1 hour will supply all the equipment's electrical requirements?
RFC 2.3 - What glass technology will be employed in the colour camera that withstand temperature ranges defined below –
Quote" The camera had to be designed to survive extreme temperature differences on the lunar surface, ranging from 121 °C (250 °F) in daylight to −157 °C (−251 °F) in the shade.[10] Another requirement was to be able to keep the power to approximately 7 watts, and fit the signal into the narrow bandwidth on the LM's S-band antenna, which was much smaller and less powerful than the Service Module's antenna."
RFC 2.4 - How would you cool, and heat the S Band Satellite, Transmitter, Receiver, the associated electronics, and the colour camera assembly and electronics, and associated power supply units, to operate and maintain a stable, effective and robust Video downlink and data command and control uplink, in an ambient temperature environment ranging from + 250 F in daylight to -251 F in the shade, when the mobile unit is moving across a very uneven landscape, and be expected to manoeuvre in and out of full sunlight, shaded and fully dark areas with instantaneous changes in ambient temperatures?
If anyone can ping me a private message if they would like to help me out I would be maaaahooosivly appreciative.
Cheers! ;D
XXXXXXXXXXX
My background is Military RADAR / SAM's and Electronic Warfare, and I have no working knowledge of SAT COMMS, but I think I understand the principles involved, and I know some of the above RFC may not be strictly correct in their format. ;D
SNIP"
I really do look forward to any input folks have on the forum in relation to the above - :)
Nice work, fansongecho, I hope you get some answers, but I have a couple of doubts about some of the requirements.
1 - Temperature Constraints
As far as I understand it, exposed surfaces to sunlight reach the highest temperature, but vacuum is not a heat conductor, so any thing inside a box with vacuum inside would not be affected by the external temperature, only the parts in contact with the external box.
2 - Operational Constraints at Site A
Again, as far as I understand it, the communications were between a fixed point on Earth but to three different places, to avoid those down times in communications.
Thanks for the feedback ArMaP - I will check those two points out later on. :)
This just in from two of the guys, I have yet to read any of them as its 5;40 am UK time but I will post them and come back to them later, as there is a LOT of information to go through.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/NASA-SP-87.pdf (Page 6 onwards details all the Earth Ground Stations ArMaP)
http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/
https://www.popsci.com/how-nasa-broadcast-neil-armstrong-live-from-moon#page-3
Cheers!
Fans' :) :)
Thanks for the comments made so far..
I think I recall seeing that Video Fans...and ArMaPs thoughts on it.
It becomes awkward to compare the opposing views between the Two videos posted.
That seems you have some top contacts to ask their opinions on certain related topics...
and as I say... Its good to see Sgts thoughts on the Van Allen Radiation Belt for the Apollo missions..
Quote from: astr0144 on August 12, 2018, 11:58:15 AM
and as I say... Its good to see Sgts thoughts on the Van Allen Radiation Belt for the Appolo missions..
thanks, and no, the info wasn't from Nasa... ;D ;) (just Wikipedia) 8)(but hey now that I think about it, it may have come from Nasa after all) ;D ;D ;D
I thought that Sgt RR was PRCs more indepth NASA / Apollo Mission / Lunar Moon specialist ...
and did not purely reply on Wikipedia articles !, like many of us lesser mortals may do ! :D
But I was never really sure on your Views on say the Van Allen Radiation Belt theory
or your view on whether the Apollo mission went to the moon or not.
I say part of this because you are older and would have experinced the Apollo Missions being older at the time... and you were not a youngster at the time they occurred.
and you have also been in connections of the likes of John Lear and Zorgon, and other longer term members for some years. as well have having been on several past related forums over some time...
But I dont really how you may view say John Lears views on the Apollo Missions. if say John had thought that they had been a Hoax.. as to had you agreed with him on that ?
I dont think that you fully agree with some of his comments on UFOs for eg on the Bob Lazar story in which John had become a main part to it...and yet my impression used to be that I thought that John, Zorgon and yourself all had similar views after you may have known each other for some time..
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 12, 2018, 12:39:25 PM
thanks, and no, the info wasn't from Nasa... ;D ;) (just Wikipedia) 8)(but hey now that I think about it, it may have come from Nasa after all) ;D ;D ;D
Well we do.....sometimes.... ;)
I've heard John say he believes something until he doesn't.
Zorgon and John have been at this longer than most and they have a hell of a lot more info than I do.....
BTW...I NOT an expert on anything. But sometimes people think I am. ::)
My videos on finding anomalies on the Lunar surface was just something I think I saw and not 'proof' of anything. (There is something definitely up there that we're not being told about.)
I've said many times that I think we did go to the moon, just not the way it was portrayed. Does that mean somethings were faked to hide certain things? Sure, with all that money and prestige involved, there couldn't be failure.
Keith Laney has done some really great research on Apollo 17 and why they went to that particular place.
I believe there is a very good reason why we haven't been back, besides money and prestige.
As far as Bob Lazar goes...well I've had some questions and the answers I've seen to those questions, in my opinion doesn't make sense.
But as I said I'm not an expert at anything, except shooting my mouth off when it's better I just keep it shut.
But having said all that, I would trust Zorgon and John. 8)
So the heat on the moon bothered me a lot, I did some basic research on the subject -
Back to the temperature differentials on the surface of the moon, looking into this and on Earth we get heat transferred via, conduction, convection, and radiation -
In a vacuum conduction and convection do not factor due to the vacuum.
Heat from the Sun is transferred across the vacuum of space via Radiation as described below.
Here are some useful links on Radiation propagation and the implications for heat transfer on a airless body, IE the Moon.
simple explanation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZliZyoYT80
more advanced, and the Proffessor reminds me of someone :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48eE9ToxB6k
More maths based explanation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8LOdJuQoJY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Es9u9wv1k0
A more visual explanation if you are a visual learner.
And if you learn by reading - https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/if-heat-cannot-travel-through-a-vacuum-why-does-the-sun-feel-hot.html
Cheers,
Fansongecho :)
Thanks for your reply and answers to those questions Sgt.
I just wanted to recheck on your thoughts on some things, that I was unsure about in mainly ref to John...
I know or sometimes you have held back on certain topics with your views..maybe more in later times on the forum..
But I always though that you may have more validity on some of the Moon related topics..
But few if any of us are experts on anything... but maybe so more in some peoples views.. I suppose Its all relative !
sometimes we may also partially be kidding ! ??? :)
QuoteBTW...I NOT an expert on anything. But sometimes people think I am. ::)
My videos on finding anomalies on the Lunar surface was just something I think I saw and not 'proof' of anything. (There is something definitely up there that we're not being told about.)
Quote from: fansongecho on August 12, 2018, 12:14:22 AM
My background is Military RADAR / SAM's and Electronic Warfare, and I have no working knowledge of SAT COMMS, but I think I understand the principles involved, and I know some of the above RFC may not be strictly correct in their format. ;D
I'm into brain/consciousness and related stuff.
Could you share what you know on Microwave non-lethal weapons. Perhaps in another thread.
Also what about the effects of high powered directed radar on pilots and how this might be used in spoofing. I suspect spoofing technology might be behind a lot of UFO reports (especially if radar/microwaves can also influence what a pilot "sees" visually" and "hears".
Like I say perhaps a new thread? What ya got? :)
I recall somewhere in this thread Irene and Sarge discussing the astronaut news conference where they were obviously ill at ease and not comfortable answering questions.
I can't find that exchange now, but wanted to back up Sarge's comment about the program being top secret.
That is true but I don't think he went far enough in providing context. In fact... the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions were all top secret as hell at the time.
I was locked into getting any information available to the public from any source all during these programs, and technical tidbits were always very hard to come by.
So yes, I agree 100% with Sarge's estimation that the astronauts were very concerned about accidentally letting any secrets loose while answering reporters questions.
I think this is the posts that you refer to.. that were made on another thread that also discussed somethings to do with the moon landings.. and Sgt and Irene , Pim had their discussion..
Horizon: Jupiter Revealed
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=11047.msg145061#msg145061
Quote from: A51Watcher on August 16, 2018, 03:41:07 PM
I recall somewhere in this thread Irene and Sarge discussing the astronaut news conference where they were obviously ill at ease and not comfortable answering questions.
I can't find that exchange now, but wanted to back up Sarge's comment about the program being top secret.
That is true but I don't think he went far enough in providing context. In fact... the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions were all top secret as hell at the time.
I was locked into getting any information available to the public from any source all during these programs, and technical tidbits were always very hard to come by.
So yes, I agree 100% with Sarge's estimation that the astronauts were very concerned about accidentally letting any secrets loose while answering reporters questions.
Hi Pimander,
I will do buddy, probably not today but I will do - just one very quick one to whet your appetite :)
The attached link is public domain so I am not giving any secrets away - 8)
http://radarpages.co.uk/mob/linesman/type85.htm
The Type 85 Radar was a long range surveillance Radar Operated out of 3 Royal Air Force Radar Stations during the Cold War and operated in a sophisticated Early Warning Ground Environment "System" the above link gives really detailed information and background on this now decommissioned and declassified "system" and is well worth a read Pimander. ;D
Anyhoo, the T-85 operated in a number of modes, and in the summer there was always flocks of Rooks (part of the Raven family) that used to sit on top of the rotating radar antenna (and also the Type-84) -
Well, in one of the modes of operation the Radar engaged in, it was so powerful that it litterally cooked any Rooks that may be taking time out and hitching a ride on the Type-85, and at Staxton Wold (the Royal Air Force Station I was first posted to as a very young and wet behind the ears 17 year old) we had to be careful about the "high-power-runs" as it used to set off the car alarms and house alarms in Scarborough just down the coast from us. :o :P ;D
I will ping something out later this week Pimander ;D
Cheers,
Fansongecho ;D
Quote from: fansongecho on August 16, 2018, 05:56:42 PM
Anyhoo, the T-85 operated in a number of modes, and in the summer there was always flocks of Rooks (part of the Raven family) that used to sit on top of the rotating radar antenna (and also the Type-84) -
T-84/85 was one of the main radars at Bentwaters/Woodbridge right? :)
One guy was saying it was his job to sweep up the dead sparrows from near the radar. Potent kit!
I've also read that there were cloud-busters at the same base. Were they really testing them?
@Pimander, as far as I was aware neither the T-85 or T-84 were ever deployed out to any of the USAFE / RAF Bases in Anglia, they were deployed at RAF Neitishead, RAF Statxton Wold and RAF Boulmer bud.
I can well believe that they had a high powered Air Traffic Control like a AR-15 (much like the ATC Radars at Heathrow and Manchester) which would still cook small birds if they stayed in the beam for too long.
I never heard about cloud buster technology, but I did see that the T-85 on a high power "run" when it was light raining the antenna didnt get wet..
Signal Processing via Circular Polarisation of the (any) Radar Beam
will eliminate weather "clutter" such as rain, snow and fog and mist which if the weather is bad can/could cause the Radar Operators issues by masking low flying AC returns - its a well known signal processing in the Radar World and normally selectable by the radar engineering / operator. ;D
I will create a new thread now as I have hijacked this thread somewhat - maybe Z or one of the admins can move this reply to the new thread after I have created it please ??
Cheers!
Fansongecho :)
Quote from: fansongecho on August 18, 2018, 04:17:23 PM
@Pimander, as far as I was aware neither the T-85 or T-84 were ever deployed out to any of the USAFE / RAF Bases in Anglia, they were deployed at RAF Neitishead, RAF Statxton Wold and RAF Boulmer bud.
I got the information from a forum (Abovetopsecret.com) so the person posting was probably talking out of their 4rse hole. :)
QuoteSignal Processing via Circular Polarisation of the (any) Radar Beam
will eliminate weather "clutter" such as rain, snow and fog and mist which if the weather is bad can/could cause the Radar Operators issues by masking low flying AC returns - its a well known signal processing in the Radar World and normally selectable by the radar engineering / operator. ;D
{nods} 8)
QuoteI will create a new thread now as I have hijacked this thread somewhat - maybe Z or one of the admins can move this reply to the new thread after I have created it please ??
Cool
Any mod or admin (including me) can split the topic if our off-topic posts bother them but they (we) can rarely be bothered. :)
Quote from: A51Watcher on August 16, 2018, 03:41:07 PM
So yes, I agree 100% with Sarge's estimation that the astronauts were very concerned about accidentally letting any secrets loose while answering reporters questions.
Yes, the secret being that they never landed on the Moon. They never left LEO.
Quote from: Pimander on August 19, 2018, 01:23:13 PM
Yes, the secret being that they never landed on the Moon. They never left LEO.
That could very well be. Obviously lots of evidence pointing that direction.
My only point was from my experience the whole program was very hush hush all the way through, ostensibly due to the space race with the Ruskies.
They never left LEO which is why they had to fake pictures of shots of a distant Earth.
See from 34"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4
Quote from: Pimander on August 19, 2018, 01:39:35 PM
They never left LEO which is why they had to fake pictures of shots of a distant Earth.
In all missions?
Quote from: ArMaP on August 19, 2018, 02:15:16 PM
In all missions?
In Apollo 11? I don't think soi.
In unmanned missions? Yes.
Other Apollo missions? Perhaps.
Even if the analysis of how they are faking the distant Earth are partly conjecture it looks obvious that they are still in LEO in that shot.
Quote from: Pimander on August 19, 2018, 02:22:42 PM
Even if the analysis of how they are faking the distant Earth are partly conjecture it looks obvious that they are still in LEO in that shot.
Even if that's true it doesn't mean they didn't go to the Moon.
Quote from: ArMaP on August 19, 2018, 02:25:26 PM
Even if that's true it doesn't mean they didn't go to the Moon.
No but you don't need to fake footage of something you actually did. ::)
Quote from: Pimander on August 19, 2018, 02:44:21 PM
No but you don't need to fake footage of something you actually did. ::)
True, but they would most likely fake footage of something they had not done yet, just in case.
The problem with using those images as evidence that they didn't reach the Moon is that then all Moon photos had to be fake too, and I haven't seen one clear evidence of that in all these years.
Quote from: ArMaP on August 19, 2018, 04:06:56 PM
The problem with using those images as evidence that they didn't reach the Moon is that then all Moon photos had to be fake too, and I haven't seen one clear evidence of that in all these years.
They don't have to be fake images. Just not images of the actual Moon. (I'm only suggesting the Apollo 11 at the moment) :P
Much like the Moon rocks that turned out to have tree rings in them. If you really had Moon rocks then you don't need to hand out fake ones. (Unless the Moon has fossilised trees on it of course.)
Too much BS. It smells like what it is to me.
And finally, you don't need to make fake footage "just in case" unless you are planning to potentially fake it if you fail. If you believe they intended to do that then you are one step from admitting the truth. They faked Apollo 11.
Quote from: Pimander on August 19, 2018, 05:29:05 PM
Much like the Moon rocks that turned out to have tree rings in them. If you really had Moon rocks then you don't need to hand out fake ones. (Unless the Moon has fossilised trees on it of course.)
Any link to that?
QuoteAnd finally, you don't need to make fake footage "just in case" unless you are planning to potentially fake it if you fail. If you believe they intended to do that then you are one step from admitting the truth. They faked Apollo 11.
I'm one step from nothing, admitting the possibility that they had fake footage to show in case they failed means only that, it doesn't mean that they did fail.
Can you show clear evidence that they failed and never reached the Moon?
@ArMaP - this was widely reported buddy
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html ;D
https://phys.org/news/2009-09-moon-fake.html ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks :o
Cheers!
Fans'
Thanks for posting the video.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"
I will try to watch it in full when I can...
Its looks like it maybe one of the better videos that oppose the Moon Landings..
There was recently someone on ITVs this Morning (in the UK) that referred to the title of this video..
http://www.itv.com/thismorning
Martin Kenny was one of the researchers who was opposing the landings against a Doctor who disagreed with him..Dr Sarah Bosman.
it seems the media later seemed to discredit any suggestions to his claim...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/morning-fans-hysterics-conspiracy-theorist-13014483
He also referred to this video title as well
I have not as yet got around to watching either in full... but I have seen some parts when I did a quick browse..
"Astronauts gone wild"...
The one I post is 1 hr 28 mins long... but there are others I found under the same title about 52 mins long..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ1qWIB9jBQ
Quote from: Pimander on August 19, 2018, 01:39:35 PM
They never left LEO which is why they had to fake pictures of shots of a distant Earth.
See from 34"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4
Quote from: ArMaP on August 19, 2018, 05:49:20 PM
Any link to that?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
QuoteI'm one step from nothing, admitting the possibility that they had fake footage to show in case they failed means only that, it doesn't mean that they did fail.
It doesn't mean they succeeded either. Scepticism does not only apply only to things that are not supposedly mainstream accepted knowledge.
QuoteCan you show clear evidence that they failed and never reached the Moon?
Yes. Fake Moon rocks given to the Prime Minister of Netherlands. Astronauts not agreeing whether they can see stars on the way to the Moon.
Do you actually believe if you have really visited the Moon that you don't know whether you can see stars there? Get real ArMaP. ::)
That is clear evidence. And if you claim human testimony is not evidence then the testimony of a bunch of guys who don't know what they even saw on the way there is certainly not evidence that they have been.
Real scepticism is to be sceptical of the original claim. NASA claim that Armstrong and Buzz went on Apollo 11 to the Moon. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Well where is the money then? A few pics that may have been done in a studio? A cardboard and mylar model that is buckled everywhere I can see metal? Some men who are obviously lying as they don't even agree about what they saw?
What did Armstrong have to say (and, lets face it, he tried to say as little as possible for most of his post-Apollo life). The shame on this guys face is plain for all to see. NOT PRIDE! Shame!
"We only completed a beginning"; "We leave YOU much that is un-done" ; "There are places to go beyond
BELIEF" ; "For one of those who can remove one of truths protective layers"
If you don't understand that message folks (including you ArMaP) then you are blind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSryYmDlLBQ
Be a real sceptic and don't just be sceptical of my scepticism.
Not exactly on topic but - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph74FgtnBZ4
And I had a feeling back when X-files took off that there was truth hidden in plain sight. :o
Quote from: fansongecho on August 19, 2018, 07:02:16 PM
@ArMaP - this was widely reported buddy
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html ;D
Thanks, now I remember the case. :)
I didn't consider it important then, so I forgot about it, and I still don't find it important, as that's one rock that had more than one owner, and even if it's the one given by the astronauts it doesn't mean that all the other rocks given to other institutions were all fake Moon rocks.
Quote from: Pimander on August 19, 2018, 09:08:30 PM
Yes. Fake Moon rocks given to the Prime Minister of Netherlands. Astronauts not agreeing whether they can see stars on the way to the Moon.
Not really, what is fake is the rock on the museum, we don't know if that's the rock given to the Prime Minister.
QuoteDo you actually believe if you have really visited the Moon that you don't know whether you can see stars there? Get real ArMaP. ::)
I don't know, I was never in a similar situation.
QuoteThat is clear evidence. And if you claim human testimony is not evidence then the testimony of a bunch of guys who don't know what they even saw on the way there is certainly not evidence that they have been.
No, I consider that evidence, but not clear evidence.
QuoteReal scepticism is to be sceptical of the original claim. NASA claim that Armstrong and Buzz went on Apollo 11 to the Moon. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I always start by accepting the original claim, unless it sounds too unlikely, and I never liked "canned sentences", like that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
QuoteA few pics that may have been done in a studio?
They are more than "a few", and I have never seen clear evidence that they could have been done in a studio and could not have been done on the Moon.
QuoteA cardboard and mylar model that is buckled everywhere I can see metal?
That is your perception, it doesn't mean it's a fact.
QuoteSome men who are obviously lying as they don't even agree about what they saw?
Each person sees things in their own way, I don't find it strange they didn't agree with a personal perception.
Quote"We only completed a beginning"; "We leave YOU much that is un-done" ; "There are places to go beyond BELIEF" ; "For one of those who can remove one of truths protective layers"
If you don't understand that message folks (including you ArMaP) then you are blind.
I was never good at guessing other people's intentions, so I don't pretend to understand what other people say in cryptic messages. I never liked riddles either.
QuoteBe a real sceptic and don't just be sceptical of my scepticism.
As I said above, I always start by accepting the original version, unless it sounds too unlikely.
Do you want me to share your opinion? Show me
clear facts, not opinions or things that prove nothing.
@ArMaP, I am still doing research on this topic, granted that 1 fake moon rock proves only that NASA can lie to citizens of other countries - if they can lie with a simple moon rock, what else have they lied about ??
//
@Pimander, hey bud, did you see this wiki-page - there is this on the page and I don't know if you have read the book that is mentioned -
"SNIP"
An early and influential book about the subject of a moon-landing conspiracy, We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, was self-published in 1976 by Bill Kaysing, a former US Navy officer with a Bachelor of Arts in English.[7] Despite having no knowledge of rockets or technical writing,[8] Kaysing was hired as a senior technical writer in 1956 by Rocketdyne, the company that built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket.[9][10] He served as head of the technical publications unit at the company's Propulsion Field Laboratory until 1963. Kaysing's book made many allegations, and effectively began discussion of the Moon landings being faked.[11][12] The book claims that the chance of a successful manned landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.0017%, and that despite close monitoring by the USSR, it would have been easier for NASA to fake the Moon landings than to really go there.[13][14]
"SNIP"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
Cheers 8)
Fansongecho :)
Quote from: fansongecho on August 20, 2018, 07:24:58 AM
@ArMaP, I am still doing research on this topic, granted that 1 fake moon rock proves only that NASA can lie to citizens of other countries - if they can lie with a simple moon rock, what else have they lied about ??
In this case, the fake Moon rock was only found as fake on the museum.
The rock was given to an ex-Prime Minister of the Netherlands by the then American ambassador, not by NASA itself. After the death of the ex Prime Minister the rock was donated to the museum, where it was found to be fake. With that chain of events I cannot honestly say that NASA gave a fake Moon rock to the ex Prime Minister.
Quote from: ArMaP on August 19, 2018, 02:25:26 PM
Even if that's true it doesn't mean they didn't go to the Moon.
It has always been our contention from the beginning (our being John Lear and myself) that yes we went to the moon, but Apollo was a Hoax
We accept the fact that Lunar Orbiter took real photos of the moom
We accept the fact that Clementine Navy Mission was real and took real photos of the moon (and a distant earth, the picture that NASA enhanced and used in so many other photos as I have already shown numerous times.
We do NOT believe the Apollo ships ever made it to the moon...
My biggest issue is this...
In all the years we looked at anomalies in moon photos, all the terrain in those photos showed rugged terrain with sharp jagged peaks and rocky crags... Not ONE of those showed snoothe rounded weathered hills.
Yet NASA claims the LO photos were used to pick the landing sites
Then along come endless Apollo photos show ALL the hills in the background being smooth and rounded, no jagged peaks, no rock crags... in fact most of the hills look slightly blurred out of focus.
There is one set of images taken on two Apollo missions that shows the SAME hills... I believe NASA said it was an error :P Yeah I bet :P
So between the early 60's when we see the the LO jagged rocks and the early 70's when we see the rounded Apollo hills... who terraformed the Moon? :P
My second issue is the STARS the fact that they claim they didn't see any and we don't see any in the photos...
Yet on the NASA Astronomy picture of the day site NASA shows us a concept drawing of what the sky on Earth would look like IF we turned off the atmosphere THIS ONE
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Stars/solsticesun_lodriguss.jpg)
If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. Of course, today is the Solstice. Now then Please explain to me how it is possible that you would see billions of stars and a small sun from Earth with no atmosphere and yet see NO STARS when on the Moon with no atmosphere.
Well IF they didn't go that would explain it. They couldn't fake the stars because any amateur astronomer would have been able to spot any errors
Those two issues are to me the proof that the whole thing was staged. NASA never counted on us all having super computers so soon. :D
There is one other point as well continued....
IF The Apollo program was filmed in a studio and the blacked out the sky like these shots from Building Nine at Langley
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/Apollo_11_003.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/Apollo_11_001.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/Apollo_11_002.jpg)
You would expect that since this was BEFORE we used green screens to do background in movies (they could have added real starts then :P though the angle of view from the moon might have been an issue) that if you enhanced those old photos the sky would not look correct.
Well just look at Hoagland images where the sky was not right, showing areas that he claims were proof of a glass dome..
But do we have Apollo photos that show object that night be spots from the studio not completely blocked out?
Yes... yes we do
Now this is either an Alien Ship watching over them (which is what we first posted it as.. the "Peekaboo" class vessels... or it is some object in the studio reflecting a little light that wasn't blacked out enough (like the objects in the pictures up top)
Apollo 14 AS14-66-9295
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS14_66_9295/AS14-66-9295_a.jpg)
Close up of object.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS14_66_9295/Peekaboo_6a.png)
So this is NOT part of the Apollo craft... it is either an Alien ship or a studio artifact. It has too much detail to be a lens artifact
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/41Group_Lunar_FYEO/02files/FYEO_Lunar_05.html#Apollo14)
Then there is this artifact reflected in the helmet.. Many say 'Alien' but better explanation is studio artifact
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS12_48_7071/Helmet_001.png)
Here is another one
Apollo 11 a11pan5913-16EvM
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon7/Apollo/A11pan5913_sm.jpg)
Close up
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon7/Apollo/A11pan5913_clip.png)
Meanwhile back at Building 9...
It's ironic really because when they filmed the 2005 movie about the Apollo mission they used the SAME studio at building 9, only this time they added the green screen instead of that ball and track model...
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/ig264_walk_moon_imax_09_02.jpg)
So lets have a look at the production photos
(https://hdwallpaperim.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/25/131435-Apollo-moon-astronaut.jpg)
Re-creation of Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11, surveying the landscape with a Hasselblad still camera in the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D
This photo is actually found on several websites as being an actual photo from Apollo :P This is how "truth" gets shared
All suited up...
(https://cs9.pikabu.ru/images/big_size_comm/2017-01_4/1484644352128873438.jpg)
Director Mark Cowen instructs astronaut actors on the set of the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/ig264_walk_moon_imax_12_02.jpg)
Narrator/Producer/Writer Tom Hanks and Director Mark Cowen talk with an actor on the set of the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/ig264_walk_moon_imax_10.jpg)
Overhead shot of astronaut actors on the Moon set of the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/ig264_walk_moon_imax_08.jpg)
Re-creation of Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11, taking a photo of fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin with a Hasselblad still camera in the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D
Oh LOOKY HERE Those smooth Apollo Hills against a black starless sky :P
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/ig264_walk_moon_imax_07.jpg)
Re-creation of Charles Duke, Apollo 16, taking a personal moment to leave a family photo on the moon in the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/ig264_walk_moon_imax_06.jpg)
Re-creation of Dave Scott (left) and James Irwin, Apollo 15, exploring and photographing the lunar surface in the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D. Click to enlarge.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/ig264_walk_moon_imax_05.jpg)
Re-creation of Dave Scott and James Irwin, Apollo 15, standing on the edge of Hadley Rille, a valley nearly a mile wide, in the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D
Quote from: zorgon on August 20, 2018, 10:41:52 PM
In all the years we looked at anomalies in moon photos, all the terrain in those photos showed rugged terrain with sharp jagged peaks and rocky crags... Not ONE of those showed snoothe rounded weathered hills.
Yet NASA claims the LO photos were used to pick the landing sites
Then along come endless Apollo photos show ALL the hills in the background being smooth and rounded, no jagged peaks, no rock crags... in fact most of the hills look slightly blurred out of focus.
There is one set of images taken on two Apollo missions that shows the SAME hills... I believe NASA said it was an error :P Yeah I bet :P
So between the early 60's when we see the the LO jagged rocks and the early 70's when we see the rounded Apollo hills... who terraformed the Moon? :P
I don't get it, are you saying that the jagged rocks and the rounded hills are real or are you saying the jagged rocks are true but the rounded hills are not?
QuoteYet on the NASA Astronomy picture of the day site NASA shows us a concept drawing of what the sky on Earth would look like IF we turned off the atmosphere THIS ONE
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Stars/solsticesun_lodriguss.jpg)
If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. Of course, today is the Solstice.
Now then Please explain to me how it is possible that you would see billions of stars and a small sun from Earth with no atmosphere and yet see NO STARS when on the Moon with no atmosphere.
Being visible to our eyes is one thing, appearing in a photo is a completely different thing.
Our eyes are able to show us the full Moon and the stars at the same time with no problems, but if you take a photo it will either show stars and an overexposed Moon or a well exposed Moon and no stars.
QuoteWell IF they didn't go that would explain it. They couldn't fake the stars because any amateur astronomer would have been able to spot any errors
Planetariums were invented a long time ago, it would be easy for them to create a planetarium in the studio to have stars, and the stars would match any time they would want.
Quote from: zorgon on August 20, 2018, 10:56:42 PM
So this is NOT part of the Apollo craft... it is either an Alien ship or a studio artifact. It has too much detail to be a lens artifact
What I find interesting in that image is the blue streak, as those appear in several photos, and not just in the sky, they also appear on the ground.
QuoteThen there is this artifact reflected in the helmet.. Many say 'Alien' but better explanation is studio artifact
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS12_48_7071/Helmet_001.png)
That doesn't look reflected to me, to me it looks like something inside the helmet, seen through the visor on the area the light is hitting the shield more directly.
Quote from: zorgon on August 20, 2018, 10:41:52 PM
It has always been our contention from the beginning (our being John Lear and myself) that yes we went to the moon, but Apollo was a Hoax
I think you're right. Definitely in the case of Apollo 11.
QuoteWe accept the fact that Lunar Orbiter took real photos of the moom
Right again.
QuoteWe accept the fact that Clementine Navy Mission was real and took real photos of the moon (and a distant earth, the picture that NASA enhanced and used in so many other photos as I have already shown numerous times.
Agreed
QuoteWe do NOT believe the Apollo ships ever made it to the moon...
Perhaps some un-manned ones made it.
QuoteIn all the years we looked at anomalies in moon photos, all the terrain in those photos showed rugged terrain with sharp jagged peaks and rocky crags... Not ONE of those showed snoothe rounded weathered hills.
Yes, because the Apollo pictures were faked on Earth. OBVIOUSLY! 8)
QuoteYet NASA claims the LO photos were used to pick the landing sites
The ones nobody went to you mean? :)
QuoteThen along come endless Apollo photos show ALL the hills in the background being smooth and rounded, no jagged peaks, no rock crags...
Oh shit, somebody noticed!!!
QuoteThere is one set of images taken on two Apollo missions that shows the SAME hills... I believe NASA said it was an error :P Yeah I bet :P
The other error was not just hiring an unscrupulous actor. Armstrong was not the right man to pull off a hoax like this. He cracked and it is obvious to the trained eye. In fact to the untrained eye it looks obvious.
Now nobody could accuse me of just believing anything. I take a good look at things. I know John Lear threw some nonsense out there. But Apollo 11? Real? Not a fuc4ing chance. They didn't even try to do it. If you believe it then stop kidding yourself. ::)
@ArMAp - I will be ringing both NASA and the Dutch to ascertain the truth about the rock, and I will do my best to record the conversations, it wont be this week but I am off next week and I will do it then. :-\
//
@Z, I totally agree, we did not get through the Van Allen Radiation belts with the Apollo missions technology, I do believe that there were many unmanned missions that the US and USSR commissioned separately and I think jointly (cant prove that, just a hunch) that explored the moon, and will remain classified and hidden from Joe blow (us) for a few hundred years - I do suspect and have a very strong gut feeling that the US did get to the moon using some other advanced technology but I wont see evidence of it in my remaining lifetime, and I really do believe that Ingo Swann was correct in stating that we (human-kind) are not at all welcome on the moon by the indigenous species that exist on there. 8)
AND, if the US / Russia / China or India or any joint ventures do try and go back, with manned missions, they will be meet with a very hostile response - expect the livestream to go dead and an announcement of "catastrophic failures of the mission on live TV IF it ever happens.
all just "feelings" of course - I cant, as yet prove any of this but I am putting it out there for comments. :)
Cheers, ;D
Fans'
Quote from: fansongecho on August 21, 2018, 06:47:42 AM
@ArMAp - I will be ringing both NASA and the Dutch to ascertain the truth about the rock, and I will do my best to record the conversations, it wont be this week but I am off next week and I will do it then. :-\
That would be great. :)
QuoteAND, if the US / Russia / China or India or any joint ventures do try and go back, with manned missions, they will be meet with a very hostile response - expect the livestream to go dead and an announcement of "catastrophic failures of the mission on live TV IF it ever happens.
Why are unmanned missions allowed by those supposed Moon people but manned missions are not?
@ArMaP, maybe they do interfere with the un-manned missions,that are not publicly declared by which ever Space Enabled Governments ? I forget how many Mars missions had failures ? it was quite a few if memory serves before they landed and managed to get "reliable data" back from Mars as I recall? :) :P ;)
Quote from: fansongecho on August 21, 2018, 05:03:18 PM
@ArMaP, maybe they do interfere with the un-manned missions,that are not publicly declared by which ever Space Enabled Governments ?
Why those, do they watch Earth news channels? :)
QuoteI forget how many Mars missions had failures ? it was quite a few if memory serves before they landed and managed to get "reliable data" back from Mars as I recall? :) :P ;)
Many, if I'm not mistaken, only the US has had success in landing probes on Mars.
PS: on my previous post I was thinking about the Moon, as that was what we were talking about, not Mars.
@ArMap.. lol.. not sure what those undeclared missions broadcast buddy :) :)
Re the Mars connections, I was attempting to point out that the Mars (declared) mission failures are well documented - and going rapidly back to the Moon thread .. :) :)
Cheers!
Fans' ;)
Incidentally, has anyone managed to work out why the Space Shuttle couldn't go to the Moon if Apollo could?
I don't mean land there as Apollo would have crashed if it tried let alone The Shuttle. I mean just a small boost and orbit then sling back. One single reason why it couldn't.
Not sure what the main single reason maybe..
but when I put your question in a search box...
this is what answers that it suggested
QuoteThe Space Shuttle was designed for Low Earth Orbit (LEO). It did not have the capacity to carry enough fuel to go to the moon. It did not have a communication system that would allow effective communication from the moon. It was not shielded for the radiation experienced at those altitudes.
Quote from: Pimander on August 22, 2018, 12:24:23 AM
Incidentally, has anyone managed to work out why the Space Shuttle couldn't go to the Moon if Apollo could?
I don't mean land there as Apollo would have crashed if it tried let alone The Shuttle. I mean just a small boost and orbit then sling back. One single reason why it couldn't.
Pegasus to the Rescue... :P
AQUILA CARGO TRANSPORT
Remember that one? The one that started my whole quest into the secret space program? The one that got Jack Arneson to join? (RIP Jack) The one that involves Buzz Aldrin and launches from Kwajalien? The name that appears in the paper that is in Zorgon's TEST here on the forum that only a very few people took? The name that comes from the Chronicles of Riddick?
Method of Delivering Lunar Generated Fluid
to Earth Orbit Using an External Tank
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Space_Station/ATSS_012.png)
Publication number: US5092545
Publication date: 1992-03-03
Inventor: BUTTERFIELD ANSEL J (US); GOSLEE JOHN W (US)
Applicant: NASA (US)
ABSTRACT
A method and apparatus are provided for delivering lunar generated fluid to Earth orbit from lunar orbit. Transport takes place in an external tank of a shuttle which has been suitably outfitted in Earth orbit for reusable travel between Earth orbit and a lunar orbit. The outfitting of the external tank includes the adding of an engine, an electrical system, a communication system, a guidance system, an aerobraking device, and a plurality of interconnected fluid storage tanks to the hydrogen and oxygen tanks of the external tank. The external tank is then propelled to lunar orbit the first time using Earth based propellant. In lunar orbit, the storage tanks are filled with the lunar generated fluid with the remainder tank volumes filled with lunar generated liquid oxygen and hydrogen which serve as propellants for returning the tank to Earth orbit where the fluid is off-loaded. The remaining lunar generated oxygen and hydrogen is then sufficient to return the external tank to lunar orbit so that a subsequent cycle of fluid delivery is repeated. A space station in a higher Earth orbit is preferably used to outfit the external tank, and a lunar node in lunar orbit is used to store and transfer the fluid and liquid oxygen and hydrogen to the external tank. The lunar generated fluid is preferably 3He.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/Aquila_003.html
Quote from: zorgon on August 22, 2018, 11:28:49 PM
Pegasus to the Rescue... :P
AQUILA CARGO TRANSPORT
Remember that one? The one that started my whole quest into the secret space program? The one that got Jack Arneson to join? (RIP Jack) The one that involves Buzz Aldrin and launches from Kwajalien? The name that appears in the paper that is in Zorgon's TEST here on the forum that only a very few people took? The name that comes from the Chronicles of Riddick?
Method of Delivering Lunar Generated Fluid
to Earth Orbit Using an External Tank
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Space_Station/ATSS_012.png)
Publication number: US5092545
Publication date: 1992-03-03
Inventor: BUTTERFIELD ANSEL J (US); GOSLEE JOHN W (US)
Applicant: NASA (US)
ABSTRACT
A method and apparatus are provided for delivering lunar generated fluid to Earth orbit from lunar orbit. Transport takes place in an external tank of a shuttle which has been suitably outfitted in Earth orbit for reusable travel between Earth orbit and a lunar orbit. The outfitting of the external tank includes the adding of an engine, an electrical system, a communication system, a guidance system, an aerobraking device, and a plurality of interconnected fluid storage tanks to the hydrogen and oxygen tanks of the external tank. The external tank is then propelled to lunar orbit the first time using Earth based propellant. In lunar orbit, the storage tanks are filled with the lunar generated fluid with the remainder tank volumes filled with lunar generated liquid oxygen and hydrogen which serve as propellants for returning the tank to Earth orbit where the fluid is off-loaded. The remaining lunar generated oxygen and hydrogen is then sufficient to return the external tank to lunar orbit so that a subsequent cycle of fluid delivery is repeated. A space station in a higher Earth orbit is preferably used to outfit the external tank, and a lunar node in lunar orbit is used to store and transfer the fluid and liquid oxygen and hydrogen to the external tank. The lunar generated fluid is preferably 3He.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/Aquila_003.html
Looks like a cross between the Dynasoar and the X37B.