The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Locke on April 18, 2012, 09:52:02 AM
-
I'm just curious exactly what evidence you have that supports that NASA is a corrupt hoaxing organization that fakes videos just to mislead for no apparent reason. List out why they are corrupt/lie with specific valid arguments. Thanks
-
Actually, conspiracy discussion goes in FET general.
Or, if asking a question, Q&A.
But other than that; they don't.
-
Try the wiki. Tom made an excellent page regarding it that, if read with an open mind, should be found quite enlightening.
-
Apparently, only NASA is part of the conspiration, not the other agencies!
-
The evidence is that the earth is flat, so there must be a conspiracy!
-
The evidence is that the earth is flat, so there must be a conspiracy!
Yeah, but they only mention the NASA, always the NASA and exclusively the NASA!
-
The evidence is that the earth is flat, so there must be a conspiracy!
Yeah, but they only mention the NASA, always the NASA and exclusively the NASA!
That's because just about every other space agency cooperates or works with NASA, therefore they are all grouped together under the NASA umbrella. It seems that as far as Tom is concerned, "NASA" is essentially synonymous with "any or all space agencies".
-
Still has to be proved...
-
The evidence is that the earth is flat, so there must be a conspiracy!
Yeah, but they only mention the NASA, always the NASA and exclusively the NASA!
That's because just about every other space agency cooperates or works with NASA, therefore they are all grouped together under the NASA umbrella. It seems that as far as Tom is concerned, "NASA" is essentially synonymous with "any or all space agencies".
What about Russia's agencies?
That's one thing I never get about the Conspiracy...
Why is NASA in charge? Why not the USSR's program? All NASA did was get to the moon.
-
The evidence is that the earth is flat, so there must be a conspiracy!
Yeah, but they only mention the NASA, always the NASA and exclusively the NASA!
That's because just about every other space agency cooperates or works with NASA, therefore they are all grouped together under the NASA umbrella. It seems that as far as Tom is concerned, "NASA" is essentially synonymous with "any or all space agencies".
What about Russia's agencies?
That's one thing I never get about the Conspiracy...
Why is NASA in charge? Why not the USSR's program? All NASA did was get to the moon.
Actually, NASA didn't get to the Moon first. The Soviets landed probes and even returned samples before the USA. Except on the manned lunar missions, the USA really doesn't have much in the way of 'firsts'. So your point, given the Soviet, now Confederated, accomplishments, is a strong one.
-
great post!
the faqqers cant even tell us just who is NASA...not to mention other space agencies.....
True Zetetics believe in what they can see and prove...
A disc earth CAN exist w/o a massive conspiracy.
and with the return of Master Willmore, that will be very true.
-
The evidence is that the earth is flat, so there must be a conspiracy!
I find this statement very funny that because the earth is flat NASA is a lie. If NASA isn't a lie then this whole site is wrong so you use very circular logic here. The earth doesn't appear flat if you look at NASA photographs so actually this answer makes no sense at all because "the evidence" from NASA actually proves the earth is round. To prove the earth is flat, you must first establish that NASA is a hoax. However, it doesn't work the other way around because the earth being flat is predicated of NASA being a hoax. So basically what I'm saying is that you are just making this accusation to keep your theory consistent, every time your theory is disproven you just tweak some variable to make it work again. And because you have to prove the earth is flat first, then you can't use that as an internal reason to prove NASA is wrong.
-
By that logic I could disprove FEt right here. So, REt looks true. There might be a chance FEt is true. But because if I prove REt is true by ignoring the possibility of FEt, now, "the evidence" indicates the earth is round. And because the evidence supports it's round, FEt is clearly a hoax because I just proved the earth is round by ignoring evidence that is to the contrary (aka "proving" FEt by ignoring NASA statements, actions and photographs and then saying because FEt is right, NASA is wrong). I used the same logic here as above and you can see how stupid it is.
-
Why is NASA in charge? Why not the USSR's program?
If you look at multinational projects such as the ISS, you will notice that NASA generally takes the lead role. Also, NASA tends to have a higher public profile than the Russian space agency.
-
Why is NASA in charge? Why not the USSR's program?
If you look at multinational projects such as the ISS, you will notice that NASA generally takes the lead role. Also, NASA tends to have a higher public profile than the Russian space agency.
But they didn't at the start.
Russia had got most the milestones long before NASA.
What, was NASA running those?
-
That is irrelevant. Even if NASA is the lead agency every other space agency and astronomy/astrophysics lab would have to be in on the conspiracy. I find that hard to believe for a number of reasons:
1st - They are scientists whose job it is to seek the truth not fabricate elaborate hoaxes
2nd - They have nothing to gain at all other than trolling the flat earthers
3rd - There is no way that thousands of scientists at NASA, ESA, JAXA, Russian space agency, Chinese space agency, and every observatory in the world would lie about this so completely and well. I mean there is bound to be a leak
4th - You still have no evidence to support that NASA is a lie except for Cat Earth Theory's remark that I already responded to
-
Why is NASA in charge? Why not the USSR's program?
If you look at multinational projects such as the ISS, you will notice that NASA generally takes the lead role. Also, NASA tends to have a higher public profile than the Russian space agency.
But they didn't at the start.
Russia had got most the milestones long before NASA.
What, was NASA running those?
The conspiracy leaders quietly run the various space agencies from behind the scenes. NASA is just the most visible member so they are the space agency that people think of when they think of space agencies.
-
I'm still not sure how this is relevant. I mean if NASA leads others or doesn't is neither hear nor there but unless you can prove they are leading a conspiracy it is pointless to argue how they are viewed by other agencies at least in the framework of a debate about a NASA conspiracy theory.
-
I'm still not sure how this is relevant. I mean if NASA leads others or doesn't is neither hear nor there but unless you can prove they are leading a conspiracy it is pointless to argue how they are viewed by other agencies at least in the framework of a debate about a NASA conspiracy theory.
It is quite difficult to provide evidence for a conspiracy, otherwise it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy, now would it?
-
Surely zeteticists, with their keen rational minds, wouldn't accept the extraordinary claim of a huge conspiracy without incontrovertible evidence of its existence?
-
Surely zeteticists, with their keen rational minds, wouldn't accept the extraordinary claim of a huge conspiracy without incontrovertible evidence of its existence?
I don't really care for explaining the conspiracy and I've tried more than a few times to work around it. I was really waiting for Tom Bishop to chime in, as he usually seems to enjoy handling these kinds of threads.
-
At minimum, there would have been ONE guy who'd tell about the conspiracy. I mean, one insider, not one of those guys who says "There's no Moon landing because a flag cannot float when there's no atmosphere".
-
I belieue that it"s not as simple as many people seem to think.
NASA haue no more idea about the true nature of the earth, and the complex reality that we liue in, than the auerage poster on this forum.
The conspiracy lies in the fact that their craft haue only euer reached as far as the upper atmosphere, and no further. They certainly haue neuer been to the moon, as they like to claim. So carry on, accountable to no one, wasting tax payer"s money with their futile shenanigans.
Mizuki x
-
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars
So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.
the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
-
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars
So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.
the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.
-
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars
So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.
the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.
Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
-
Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought under FET, the Sun and Moon were just flying up at the same speed of the Earth.
-
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars
So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.
the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.
Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
Please do tell us how you determined that the Sun and the Moon float above a FE just fine. Unless you have some magic levitation involved, your outlandish claim is, as unusual, unsupported. Oh, and 'floating' is not 'orbiting'.
-
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars
So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.
the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.
Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
Please do tell us how you determined that the Sun and the Moon float above a FE just fine. Unless you have some magic levitation involved, your outlandish claim is, as unusual, unsupported. Oh, and 'floating' is not 'orbiting'.
There would be a point where you could even out between CG and the Earth, essentially floating.
-
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars
So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.
the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.
Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
Please do tell us how you determined that the Sun and the Moon float above a FE just fine. Unless you have some magic levitation involved, your outlandish claim is, as unusual, unsupported. Oh, and 'floating' is not 'orbiting'.
There would be a point where you could even out between CG and the Earth, essentially floating.
Irrelevant.
-
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars
So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.
the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.
Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
Please do tell us how you determined that the Sun and the Moon float above a FE just fine. Unless you have some magic levitation involved, your outlandish claim is, as unusual, unsupported. Oh, and 'floating' is not 'orbiting'.
There would be a point where you could even out between CG and the Earth, essentially floating.
Pure, hard science, that's what I like.
Seriously, any equations?
-
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars
So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.
the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.
Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
Please do tell us how you determined that the Sun and the Moon float above a FE just fine. Unless you have some magic levitation involved, your outlandish claim is, as unusual, unsupported. Oh, and 'floating' is not 'orbiting'.
There would be a point where you could even out between CG and the Earth, essentially floating.
Pure, hard science, that's what I like.
Seriously, any equations?
9.81 - 9.81 = 0
Did you have a hard time figuring that one out?
-
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars
So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.
the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.
Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
Please do tell us how you determined that the Sun and the Moon float above a FE just fine. Unless you have some magic levitation involved, your outlandish claim is, as unusual, unsupported. Oh, and 'floating' is not 'orbiting'.
There would be a point where you could even out between CG and the Earth, essentially floating.
Pure, hard science, that's what I like.
Seriously, any equations?
9.81 - 9.81 = 0
Did you have a hard time figuring that one out?
Yes, that's very difficult for me since I don't see how you measured either number. Do tell us how you manage such feats.
-
in thoery, the sun and moon orbit the earth because of theuneven mass of the earth causing a spiraling effect on the UA. This same affect will cause anything launched into space, like satellites to do the same thing.
-
Yes, that's very difficult for me since I don't see how you measured either number. Do tell us how you manage such feats.
Well, that is a shame. I assumed I was at least dealing with a person who had at least a slight grasp of the world around them. I'll be sure not to make that mistake again.
-
in thoery, the sun and moon orbit the earth because of theuneven mass of the earth causing a spiraling effect on the UA. This same affect will cause anything launched into space, like satellites to do the same thing.
Please point me to a link that even suggests that the uneven mass of the Earth causes a spiraling effect on the UA and that this spiraling effect causes the Sun and the Moon to orbit the Earth. If you meant orbit a massless point above the Earth's NP, I'd still like that link. Otherwise it's just the usual special pleading.
Yes, that's very difficult for me since I don't see how you measured either number. Do tell us how you manage such feats.
Well, that is a shame. I assumed I was at least dealing with a person who had at least a slight grasp of the world around them. I'll be sure not to make that mistake again.
So you can't answer the challenge, as usual. Typical FE dodging.
-
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars
So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.
the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.
Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
Please do tell us how you determined that the Sun and the Moon float above a FE just fine. Unless you have some magic levitation involved, your outlandish claim is, as unusual, unsupported. Oh, and 'floating' is not 'orbiting'.
There would be a point where you could even out between CG and the Earth, essentially floating.
Pure, hard science, that's what I like.
Seriously, any equations?
9.81 - 9.81 = 0
Did you have a hard time figuring that one out?
Are you that dumb?
-
At minimum, there would have been ONE guy who'd tell about the conspiracy. I mean, one insider, not one of those guys who says "There's no Moon landing because a flag cannot float when there's no atmosphere".
Former NASA employee Thomas Baron testified before Congress that NASA was running a false space program. He was murdered exactly one week after his testimony.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Thomas_Baron_Silenced_for_Attempting_to_Expose_the_Truth
-
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?
-
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?
What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.
Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
-
they have had, they do not now, with the massive layoffs...sounds like the "conspiracy" is done.
-
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?
What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.
Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
Anyone care to comment on the extreme stupidity of this post?
-
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?
What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.
Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
Anyone care to comment on the extreme stupidity of this post?
That post was not only stupid, but hypocritical. Tom Bishop again cherry picks one photo, examines it with his biased objective, ignores the preponderance of evidence supporting NASA's lunar program, and makes outlandish claims. I would challenge him to prove his contention that he and a friend could over a weekend build the LM in the photograph. Of course, even if he claimed he did so, we'd have to be circumspect given his lie about seeing people with only binoculars across Monterey Bay.
-
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?
What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.
Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
Anyone care to comment on the extreme stupidity of this post?
That post was not only stupid, but hypocritical. Tom Bishop again cherry picks one photo, examines it with his biased objective, ignores the preponderance of evidence supporting NASA's lunar program, and makes outlandish claims. I would challenge him to prove his contention that he and a friend could over a weekend build the LM in the photograph. Of course, even if he claimed he did so, we'd have to be circumspect given his lie about seeing people with only binoculars across Monterey Bay.
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
-
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?
What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.
Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
Anyone care to comment on the extreme stupidity of this post?
That post was not only stupid, but hypocritical. Tom Bishop again cherry picks one photo, examines it with his biased objective, ignores the preponderance of evidence supporting NASA's lunar program, and makes outlandish claims. I would challenge him to prove his contention that he and a friend could over a weekend build the LM in the photograph. Of course, even if he claimed he did so, we'd have to be circumspect given his lie about seeing people with only binoculars across Monterey Bay.
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
Tell me how you determined that the photo shows either paper or aluminum foil. Why would either be damning? You just making things up again, aren't you?
-
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?
What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.
Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
Anyone care to comment on the extreme stupidity of this post?
That post was not only stupid, but hypocritical. Tom Bishop again cherry picks one photo, examines it with his biased objective, ignores the preponderance of evidence supporting NASA's lunar program, and makes outlandish claims. I would challenge him to prove his contention that he and a friend could over a weekend build the LM in the photograph. Of course, even if he claimed he did so, we'd have to be circumspect given his lie about seeing people with only binoculars across Monterey Bay.
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
Tell me how you determined that the photo shows either paper or aluminum foil. Why would either be damning? You just making things up again, aren't you?
That thing is a 1960's fantasy machine, and a poor one at that.
-
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?
What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.
Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
Anyone care to comment on the extreme stupidity of this post?
That post was not only stupid, but hypocritical. Tom Bishop again cherry picks one photo, examines it with his biased objective, ignores the preponderance of evidence supporting NASA's lunar program, and makes outlandish claims. I would challenge him to prove his contention that he and a friend could over a weekend build the LM in the photograph. Of course, even if he claimed he did so, we'd have to be circumspect given his lie about seeing people with only binoculars across Monterey Bay.
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
Tell me how you determined that the photo shows either paper or aluminum foil. Why would either be damning? You just making things up again, aren't you?
That thing is a 1960's fantasy machine, and a poor one at that.
So you got nothing but baseless hyperbole. Noted. I do wish FEers would get serious about their effort.
-
At minimum, there would have been ONE guy who'd tell about the conspiracy. I mean, one insider, not one of those guys who says "There's no Moon landing because a flag cannot float when there's no atmosphere".
Former NASA employee Thomas Baron testified before Congress that NASA was running a false space program. He was murdered exactly one week after his testimony.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Thomas_Baron_Silenced_for_Attempting_to_Expose_the_Truth
Murdered?
Aren't you the one lying?
-
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
What makes you think that the paper taped together and aluminum foil aren't appropriate materials for a lunar lander?
-
At minimum, there would have been ONE guy who'd tell about the conspiracy. I mean, one insider, not one of those guys who says "There's no Moon landing because a flag cannot float when there's no atmosphere".
Former NASA employee Thomas Baron testified before Congress that NASA was running a false space program. He was murdered exactly one week after his testimony.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Thomas_Baron_Silenced_for_Attempting_to_Expose_the_Truth
Murdered?
Aren't you the one lying?
Exactly one week after his congressional testimony and just days before he was set to publish his 500 page report exposing NASA, Thomas Baron was killed by a train. He was absolutely murdered.
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
What makes you think that the paper taped together and aluminum foil aren't appropriate materials for a lunar lander?
I'm tired of this willful ignorance and deliberate denial. The fact is that the Lunar Lander is a crudely built sham.
It's disgusting that after all these years, after all these expositions of NASA's fraudulence, you refuse to accept the obvious truth.
-
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
What makes you think that the paper taped together and aluminum foil aren't appropriate materials for a lunar lander?
I'm tired of this willful ignorance and deliberate denial. The fact is that the Lunar Lander is a crudely built sham.
It's disgusting that after all these years, after all these expositions of NASA's fraudulence, you refuse to accept the obvious truth.
Your truth will remain a speculation since you do not support it by anything else taht "it looks fake" or some other feeble argument.
Prove that its fake and then we might believe you.
-
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
What makes you think that the paper taped together and aluminum foil aren't appropriate materials for a lunar lander?
Common sense.
-
Your truth will remain a speculation since you do not support it by anything else taht "it looks fake" or some other feeble argument.
Prove that its fake and then we might believe you.
I already did show that it's fake. Or are you saying that aluminum foil, scotch tape, and cardboard are appropriate building materials for space ships?
What a deluded fantasy world you RE'ers live in.
-
Your truth will remain a speculation since you do not support it by anything else taht "it looks fake" or some other feeble argument.
Prove that its fake and then we might believe you.
I already did show that it's fake. Or are you saying that aluminum foil, scotch tape, and cardboard are appropriate building materials for space ships?
What a deluded fantasy world you RE'ers live in.
As usual, Tom Bishop's material: no proof, no work, no sources, just allegations (and condescension. Coming from you, so funny).
Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true. Even if you repeat it.
-
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
What makes you think that the paper taped together and aluminum foil aren't appropriate materials for a lunar lander?
I'm tired of this willful ignorance and deliberate denial.
So you don't have an answer. Gotcha.
The fact is that the Lunar Lander is a crudely built sham.
If you don't know what a proper lunar lander should look like, then how can you criticize the design that Grumman came up with?
It's disgusting that after all these years, after all these expositions of NASA's fraudulence, you refuse to accept the obvious truth.
Saying that the LEM looks fake is a far cry from proving that it's a fake.
-
Conspiracy theories resist traditional canons of proof because they reduce highly complex phenomena to simple causes. This is ordinarily a characteristic much admired in scientific theories, where it is referred to as “parsimony. ” Conspiracy theories—particularly the systemic theories and the superconspiracy theories discussed above—are nothing if not parsimonious, for they attribute all of the world's evil to the activities of a single plot, or set of plots. Precisely because the claims are so sweeping, however, they ultimately defeat any attempt at testing. Conspiracists' reasoning runs in the following way. Because the conspiracy is so powerful, it controls virtually all of the channels through which information is disseminated—universities, media, and so forth. Further, the conspiracy desires at all costs to conceal its activities, so it will use its control over knowledge production and dissemination to mislead those who seek to expose it. Hence information that appears to put a conspiracy theory in doubt must have been planted by the conspirators themselves in order to mislead. The result is a closed system of ideas about a plot that is believed not only to be responsible for creating a wide range of evils but also to be so clever at covering its tracks that it can manufacture the evidence ad- duced by skeptics. In the end, the theory becomes nonfalsifiable, be- cause every attempt at falsification is dismissed as a ruse. Therefore, there is no way to disprove this idea. However, because we can't test it, neither can it be tested.
-
Conspiracy theories resist traditional canons of proof because they reduce highly complex phenomena to simple causes. This is ordinarily a characteristic much admired in scientific theories, where it is referred to as “parsimony. ” Conspiracy theories—particularly the systemic theories and the superconspiracy theories discussed above—are nothing if not parsimonious, for they attribute all of the world's evil to the activities of a single plot, or set of plots. Precisely because the claims are so sweeping, however, they ultimately defeat any attempt at testing. Conspiracists' reasoning runs in the following way. Because the conspiracy is so powerful, it controls virtually all of the channels through which information is disseminated—universities, media, and so forth. Further, the conspiracy desires at all costs to conceal its activities, so it will use its control over knowledge production and dissemination to mislead those who seek to expose it. Hence information that appears to put a conspiracy theory in doubt must have been planted by the conspirators themselves in order to mislead. The result is a closed system of ideas about a plot that is believed not only to be responsible for creating a wide range of evils but also to be so clever at covering its tracks that it can manufacture the evidence ad- duced by skeptics. In the end, the theory becomes nonfalsifiable, be- cause every attempt at falsification is dismissed as a ruse. Therefore, there is no way to disprove this idea. However, because we can't test it, neither can it be tested.
I couldn't agree more.
What I find interesting is that the overwhelmning amount of data and proofs is so easily discarded by FE'ers (proving them to be quite lazy, by the way).
and where common sense come to the rescue (a conspiracy? involving so many people, for such a long time, for such amount of money!?), they seem to have long abandonned it.
-
Saying that the LEM looks fake is a far cry from proving that it's a fake.
Markjo, I did not merely say that the lander was fake. I provided direct visual evidence that the Lunar Lander is built out of junkyard parts and stationary supplies.
-
Saying that the LEM looks fake is a far cry from proving that it's a fake.
Markjo, I did not merely say that the lander was fake. I provided direct visual evidence that the Lunar Lander is built out of junkyard parts and stationary supplies.
No, you haven't.
You just posted a link and told us your truth, which is not the same thing.
-
Saying that the LEM looks fake is a far cry from proving that it's a fake.
Markjo, I did not merely say that the lander was fake. I provided direct visual evidence that the Lunar Lander is built out of junkyard parts and stationary supplies.
Have you physically examined a lunar lander? There is one on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. Unless you physically examine a LEM, it's impossible to say for certain exactly what materials were used in its construction. It's also very important to understand the environment that the lander was designed to operate within before you criticize the materials that were used in its construction.
-
And it can be difficult to notice the difference between Mylar and wrapping paper!
Oh Tom, you have some work awaiting for you!
-
Saying that the LEM looks fake is a far cry from proving that it's a fake.
Markjo, I did not merely say that the lander was fake. I provided direct visual evidence that the Lunar Lander is built out of junkyard parts and stationary supplies.
Have you physically examined a lunar lander? There is one on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. Unless you physically examine a LEM, it's impossible to say for certain exactly what materials were used in its construction. It's also very important to understand the environment that the lander was designed to operate within before you criticize the materials that were used in its construction.
Stop supporting these criminals. Anyone can see that the Lunar Lander is crudely and hastily built. Are real space ships easily mistaken for a 13 year old's art project?
Your denialism is repulsive. I do not need to perform material tests on the materials to know that the Lunar Lander is a crudely constructed piece of crap. Anyone can see this. Why would NASA use scotch tape to hold everything together? Surely there are better ways than TAPE to hold the Lunar Lander together. The whole thing looks thrown together at the last second.
-
Saying that the LEM looks fake is a far cry from proving that it's a fake.
Markjo, I did not merely say that the lander was fake. I provided direct visual evidence that the Lunar Lander is built out of junkyard parts and stationary supplies.
Have you physically examined a lunar lander? There is one on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. Unless you physically examine a LEM, it's impossible to say for certain exactly what materials were used in its construction. It's also very important to understand the environment that the lander was designed to operate within before you criticize the materials that were used in its construction.
Stop supporting these criminals. Anyone can see that the Lunar Lander is crudely and hastily built. Are real space ships easily mistaken for a 15 year old's art project?
Your denialism is repulsive. I do not need to perform material tests on the materials to know that the Lunar Lander is a crudely constructed piece of crap. Anyone can see this. Why would NASA use scotch tape to hold everything together? Surely there are better ways than TAPE to hold the Lunar Lander together.
Still no proof. Your stubbornness is bewildering.
You really must accept that "anyone can see that..." is pointless and childish.
-
Still no proof. Your stubbornness is bewildering.
You really must accept that "anyone can see that..." is pointless and childish.
I did provide proof. I provided photographic evidence, not just words.
Are you denying that the materials of the Lunar Lander are crudely held together with tape? Because it clearly is. The exterior white walls of the craft don't even align properly. This is undeniable photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is a thrown together piece of crap.
-
Still no proof. Your stubbornness is bewildering.
You really must accept that "anyone can see that..." is pointless and childish.
I did provide proof. I provided photographic evidence, not just words.
Are you denying that the materials of the Lunar Lander are crudely held together with tape? Because it clearly is. The exterior white walls of the craft don't even align properly. This is undeniable photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is a thrown together piece of crap.
So for you a photograph is a proof? In this case I can link you to thousands of proofs that the Earth is round.
And yes, the Lunar Lander looks crudely held with tape. But, unlike you, I am a true Zetetic. I don't jump to far-fetched conclusions.
-
Still no proof. Your stubbornness is bewildering.
You really must accept that "anyone can see that..." is pointless and childish.
I did provide proof. I provided photographic evidence, not just words.
Are you denying that the materials of the Lunar Lander are crudely held together with tape? Because it clearly is. The exterior white walls of the craft don't even align properly. This is undeniable photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is a thrown together piece of crap.
Tom, since the LEM is designed to operate only in a vacuum, it hardly matters if the white walls line up just right or are just taped together. You have to remember that avoiding excess weight was a high priority in its design.
-
Well, yes, markjo, it would matter. Even only in a vacuum, it is (supposed to be) a pressurized container in a vacuum. I don't think tape is going to work for you there.
-
Well, yes, markjo, it would matter. Even only in a vacuum, it is (supposed to be) a pressurized container in a vacuum. I don't think tape is going to work for you there.
For you, it's only tape and paper behind the first layer? Have you an X-ray vision?
-
Well, yes, markjo, it would matter. Even only in a vacuum, it is (supposed to be) a pressurized container in a vacuum. I don't think tape is going to work for you there.
You do understand that the covers in question are not part of the pressurized cabin, don't you?
-
Exactly one week after his congressional testimony and just days before he was set to publish his 500 page report exposing NASA, Thomas Baron was killed by a train. He was absolutely murdered.
From what I read so far, it was all safety violations and procedure violations. I haven't read his 58 page report yet. I also understand he worked for North American Aviation at Kennedy Space Center.
If he was murdered, is there any proof other than 'it fits in with a conspiracy'? Evidence of a pay-off to local police? Evidence of tampering with his vehicle?
I did provide proof. I provided photographic evidence, not just words.
Are you denying that the materials of the Lunar Lander are crudely held together with tape? Because it clearly is. The exterior white walls of the craft don't even align properly. This is undeniable photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is a thrown together piece of crap.
No, you linked an exterior photo of a lunar module in your wiki page with an entire three quotes (one of which being yourself) saying it looks fake, with no photos of the interior or any other proof.
It was built to be disposable, light-weight, and used one time in light gravity and zero air-resistance. Scotch tape? Since when is scotch tape gold tinted? I have some metal tape that is silver looking, and made for extreme temperatures. I'm sure their tape isn't ordinary off-the-shelf tape from a local hardware store.
I did some quick searching, and apparently the grey 'cardboard' is heat-resistant nickel-steel alloy, 0.002 millimeters thick, and the 'aluminum foil' is plastic, thinly coated with aluminum, and used in multiple layers. In zero to light gravity and no air, tape of some kind would be adequate to hold that in place.
-
Exactly one week after his congressional testimony and just days before he was set to publish his 500 page report exposing NASA, Thomas Baron was killed by a train. He was absolutely murdered.
From what I read so far, it was all safety violations and procedure violations. I haven't read his 58 page report yet. I also understand he worked for North American Aviation at Kennedy Space Center.
If he was murdered, is there any proof other than 'it fits in with a conspiracy'? Evidence of a pay-off to local police? Evidence of tampering with his vehicle?
I did provide proof. I provided photographic evidence, not just words.
Are you denying that the materials of the Lunar Lander are crudely held together with tape? Because it clearly is. The exterior white walls of the craft don't even align properly. This is undeniable photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is a thrown together piece of crap.
No, you linked an exterior photo of a lunar module in your wiki page with an entire three quotes (one of which being yourself) saying it looks fake, with no photos of the interior or any other proof.
It was built to be disposable, light-weight, and used one time in light gravity and zero air-resistance. Scotch tape? Since when is scotch tape gold tinted? I have some metal tape that is silver looking, and made for extreme temperatures. I'm sure their tape isn't ordinary off-the-shelf tape from a local hardware store.
I did some quick searching, and apparently the grey 'cardboard' is heat-resistant nickel-steel alloy, 0.002 millimeters thick, and the 'aluminum foil' is plastic, thinly coated with aluminum, and used in multiple layers. In zero to light gravity and no air, tape of some kind would be adequate to hold that in place.
Thanks. You're doing the reasearch that Tim Bishop doesn't bother to do.
-
Still no proof. Your stubbornness is bewildering.
You really must accept that "anyone can see that..." is pointless and childish.
I did provide proof. I provided photographic evidence, not just words.
Are you denying that the materials of the Lunar Lander are crudely held together with tape? Because it clearly is. The exterior white walls of the craft don't even align properly. This is undeniable photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is a thrown together piece of crap.
You do realise that you are doubling the size of the conspiracy by adding in all the Grumman engineers who worked to build the LM? Because whether you think it went to the moon or not, build it they surely did.
-
Former NASA employee Thomas Baron testified before Congress that NASA was running a false space program. He was murdered exactly one week after his testimony.
People get stupid when it comes to train crossings. I have seen first had people tring to beat the train to the crossing. I also see almost everyday traffic backed up with cars stoping on the tracks. Knowing this it is just as posible that he was trying to beat the train at the crossing.
-
And his detailed report went 'missing'. Not to mention that a man of such intellectual stature would likely not be so stupid as to raceba train that he knew was coming.
-
I'll have to read more about his report going missing but do you realy think that smart people can't have a stupid moment?
-
Tom, since the LEM is designed to operate only in a vacuum, it hardly matters if the white walls line up just right or are just taped together. You have to remember that avoiding excess weight was a high priority in its design.
A real space agency wouldn't build a crudely thrown together space ship easily mistaken for the handiwork of a 13 year old child.
It's absurd that you would defend such rubbish.
I'll have to read more about his report going missing but do you realy think that smart people can't have a stupid moment?
He just happened to get steamrolled by a train one week after his congressional hearing exposing NASA and only a few days before his 500 page report was set to be published?
No. He was very obviously murdered. The timing is impeccable.
-
Tom, since the LEM is designed to operate only in a vacuum, it hardly matters if the white walls line up just right or are just taped together. You have to remember that avoiding excess weight was a high priority in its design.
A real space agency wouldn't build a crudely thrown together space ship easily mistaken for the handiwork of a 13 year old child.
It's absurd that you would defend such rubbish.
I'll have to read more about his report going missing but do you realy think that smart people can't have a stupid moment?
He just happened to get steamrolled by a train one week after his congressional hearing exposing NASA and only a few days before his 500 page report was set to be published?
No. He was very obviously murdered. The timing is impeccable.
On both points (the Lunar Module and the supposed assassination):
STILL NO PROOF
I suggest that you come back to this topic only when you have more sensible things to say. You're waisting your time and ours. And working against FET.
-
On both points (the Lunar Module and the supposed assassination):
STILL NO PROOF
I suggest that you come back to this topic only when you have more sensible things to say. You're waisting your time and ours. And working against FET.
Why are you still asking for proof when I already provided photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is crudely built?
In the case of Thomas Baron, a video was provided in the link confirming that he was smacked by a train just days before he was set to release his 500 page report. Newspapers and police reports are also available.
Evidence was provided. Please stop or I will report your trouble making to the forum moderators.
-
So was he tied to the tracks? Pushed?
If you have any evidence of foul-play that'd be wonderful.
-
Zhark and Cat, Baron's death was highly convenient. And suicide allegations make it even more intriguing. Was he compelled to end it?
-
Was he? Feel free to bring up actual evidence.
-
Zhark and Cat, Baron's death was highly convenient. And suicide allegations make it even more intriguing. Was he compelled to end it?
Highly convenient, this remains to be proved.
The conditions of this death remains to be proved.
Personaly, I don't have yet an opinion, I'm just like you, speculating.
-
On both points (the Lunar Module and the supposed assassination):
STILL NO PROOF
I suggest that you come back to this topic only when you have more sensible things to say. You're waisting your time and ours. And working against FET.
Why are you still asking for proof when I already provided photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is crudely built?
In the case of Thomas Baron, a video was provided in the link confirming that he was smacked by a train just days before he was set to release his 500 page report. Newspapers and police reports are also available.
Evidence was provided. Please stop or I will report your trouble making to the forum moderators.
1. The Lunar Lander LOOKS crudely built. Is it? You haven't provent iy yet.
2. Yes the death of Thomas Baron looks suspicious. But we don't have enough data to jump to the conclusion of murder.
-
I can't even find a credible source that says his 500 page report was completed and then lost.
-
On both points (the Lunar Module and the supposed assassination):
STILL NO PROOF
I suggest that you come back to this topic only when you have more sensible things to say. You're waisting your time and ours. And working against FET.
Why are you still asking for proof when I already provided photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is crudely built?
In the case of Thomas Baron, a video was provided in the link confirming that he was smacked by a train just days before he was set to release his 500 page report. Newspapers and police reports are also available.
Evidence was provided. Please stop or I will report your trouble making to the forum moderators.
Your evidence fails to make your case. Cherry picking one photo, ignoring the others, is cowardly. Making wild statements about the construction of the LEM is useless. Every credible researcher agrees that man have walked on the Moon. We've regularly had to demonstrate your claims to be false. Remember the Apollo 16 "set" repeat from earlier this month? You failed there miserably. How about your outlandish claim that the Chinese spacewalk as fake? Remember what your source was? Epoch Times. They published this woo-woo article just last month: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/does-telepathy-conflict-with-science-211214.html (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/does-telepathy-conflict-with-science-211214.html). There's a pattern here. You make outlandish claims. Don't do your homework. Make trolling comments. Memberate. And, finally, fail to concede when proven wrong.
Please reference any newspaper or police report that declared Baron's death a murder. Surely these investigators at the time are far superior to your armchair ruminations.
-
Tom, since the LEM is designed to operate only in a vacuum, it hardly matters if the white walls line up just right or are just taped together. You have to remember that avoiding excess weight was a high priority in its design.
A real space agency wouldn't build a crudely thrown together space ship easily mistaken for the handiwork of a 13 year old child.
NASA didn't build the LEM. Grumman did (http://www.northropgrumman.com/heritage/inspace/index.html).
It's absurd that you would defend such rubbish.
It's absurd that a zetetic would judge the space worthiness of the LEM from a photograph.
-
obviously, grumman is part of the conspiracy...
::)
-
The real questions we should be asking is why does it matter if congress knew. If this conspiracy is as total as you claim, the congress would have been in on it. I doubt NASA would just fake a lunar program without direction form Congress. I mean it's not like NASA scientists just chill in a completely government funded facility and do space craft/art projects and lie to the government which funds and provides oversight to it. Therefore, there is absolutely no logical reason for him to be murdered as the people he was reporting to should have been in on the conspiracy.
-
A real space agency wouldn't build a crudely thrown together space ship easily mistaken for the handiwork of a 13 year old child.
NASA didn't build the LEM. Grumman did (http://www.northropgrumman.com/heritage/inspace/index.html).
We've gone over this already.
Grumman contractors build and design things for the government under the auspices of government managers, and do so on government research bases. Grumman contractors are basically government employees. Contracting companies like Grumman and Lockheed are really just the government version of KForce or Volt staffing. It's a temp agency. They're headhunters which contract your services to the government. Most of the time the contracting company does not really know, nor have an interest in, what their contractors are doing for the client.
NASA designed the LEM, because Grumman temps are de-facto NASA employees.
It's like the DoD. Very few people at military research bases actually work for the government (only managers and security). The actual people designing and building the equipment on the government base are government contractors.
Look at the NAVY's new Rail Gun weapon for instance. Would you say that the NAVY designed their new Rain Gun, or would you say that so-and-so temp agency designed it? The answer is that the NAVY did, because the contractors are de-facto government employees receiving instructions from and working directly under government managers. They're the hired help.
IBM hires contractors to build their chips, Nestle hires contractors to process their candies, Gerber hires contractors to maintain their equipment, but it's still IBM, Nestle, and Gerber pulling the strings and who are responsible for the end result.
It's absurd that a zetetic would judge the space worthiness of the LEM from a photograph.
A photograph of a crudely built spacecraft is photographic evidence that it is crudely built. I don't know what your problem is.
You need to stop denying and face the facts.
-
A photograph of a crudely built spacecraft is photographic evidence that it is crudely built. I don't know what your problem is.
You need to stop denying and face the facts.
Wrong, as usual.
If you cannot make the difference between appearances and reality, you are led to believe anything.
And aren't you the guy who told us not to believe in photographs? Or are you applying your double standards: a FE'ers can use any photograph he pleases where a RE'ers will be automatically denied the right to use a photograph.
-
I did some quick searching, and apparently the grey 'cardboard' is heat-resistant nickel-steel alloy, 0.002 millimeters thick, and the 'aluminum foil' is plastic, thinly coated with aluminum, and used in multiple layers. In zero to light gravity and no air, tape of some kind would be adequate to hold that in place.
Note to Tim Bishop: why did you conveniently forget those elements?
-
A real space agency wouldn't build a crudely thrown together space ship easily mistaken for the handiwork of a 13 year old child.
NASA didn't build the LEM. Grumman did (http://www.northropgrumman.com/heritage/inspace/index.html).
We've gone over this already.
Grumman contractors build and design things for the government under the auspices of government managers, and do so on government research bases. Grumman contractors are basically government employees. Contracting companies like Grumman and Lockheed are really just the government version of KForce or Volt staffing. It's a temp agency. They're headhunters which contract your services to the government. Most of the time the contracting company does not really know, nor have an interest in, what their contractors are doing for the client.
NASA designed the LEM, because Grumman temps are de-facto NASA employees.
It's like the DoD. Very few people at military research bases actually work for the government (only managers and security). The actual people designing and building the equipment on the government base are government contractors.
Look at the NAVY's new Rail Gun weapon for instance. Would you say that the NAVY designed their new Rain Gun, or would you say that so-and-so temp agency designed it? The answer is that the NAVY did, because the contractors are de-facto government employees receiving instructions from and working directly under government managers. They're the hired help.
IBM hires contractors to build their chips, Nestle hires contractors to process their candies, Gerber hires contractors to maintain their equipment, but it's still IBM, Nestle, and Gerber pulling the strings and who are credited with the end result.
It's absurd that a zetetic would judge the space worthiness of the LEM from a photograph.
A photograph of a crudely built spacecraft is photographic evidence that it is crudely built. I don't know what your problem is.
You need to stop denying and face the facts.
I note you carefully ignoring my mention that regardless of how you label the Grumman engineers, the fact is they went out and built this spacecraft and therefore in your view are members of the conspiracy if it would not function, or if they're not, then the spacecraft has to be legitimate in terms of design.
Which is it, Mr Bishop?
You won't address this.
-
A photograph of a crudely built spacecraft is photographic evidence that it is crudely built. I don't know what your problem is.
We are yet to see this spacecraft in all its crudity. You have provided a picture (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg) of a spacecraft with thermal insulation maternal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation) attached to the outside. This spacecraft does not need to be aerodynamic but does need to be light. The type of thermal insulation seen is widely used for modern satellites (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=satellite+gold+foil&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&pdl=300&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=u8iST8fSA5OV0QXvsLiCAg&biw=1280&bih=825&sei=tcqST4XtIuSp0QXy4rzPAQ#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=satellite+thermal+insulation&oq=satellite+thermal+insulation&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=img.3...4408.10726.0.10974.18.18.0.11.11.1.175.902.1j6.7.0.0lCauH6bpXg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=a991111e3b5935e3&biw=1280&bih=825). To the ignorant or gullible this looks a little amateurish but it does not need to be aerodynamic nor pretty to serve its function: Just light-weight, flexible and radiation proof.
-
You need to stop denying and face the facts.
That's rich, especially coming from you. Have you ever heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"? Just because the outside looks crude, that doesn't mean that there is a lot of engineering and technology under those poorly fitting covers.
-
And aren't you the guy who told us not to believe in photographs? Or are you applying your double standards: a FE'ers can use any photograph he pleases where a RE'ers will be automatically denied the right to use a photograph.
I didn't say that you can't use photographs. We use and discuss photographs all the time on this forum.
I did some quick searching, and apparently the grey 'cardboard' is heat-resistant nickel-steel alloy, 0.002 millimeters thick, and the 'aluminum foil' is plastic, thinly coated with aluminum, and used in multiple layers. In zero to light gravity and no air, tape of some kind would be adequate to hold that in place.
Note to Tim Bishop: why did you conveniently forget those elements?
Do you think NASA is going to admit building the Lunar Lander out of cardboard and junkyard parts?
The fact is that the whole thing is crudely constructed piece of crap. Pretending that it's built out of space age materials isn't going to erase the fact that it looks like it was thrown together over a weekend by children.
You need to stop denying and face the facts.
That's rich, especially coming from you. Have you ever heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"? Just because the outside looks crude, that doesn't mean that there is a lot of engineering and technology under those poorly fitting covers.
Have you ever heard the saying "A $6 Billion dollar engineering project usually doesn't look like a 13 year old taped it together with stationary supplies and junkyard parts"?
A photograph of a crudely put together space craft is photographic evidence of a crudely put together spacecraft. There is no denial of facts.
-
(...) it looks like it was thrown together over a weekend by children.
Have you ever heard the phrase "A $6 Billion dollar engineering project usually doesn't look like a 13 year old taped it together with stationary supplies and junkyard parts"?
A photograph of a crudely put together space craft is photographic evidence of a crudely put together spacecraft. There is no denial of facts.
You say it yourself: it LOOKS LIKE. It doesn't mean it is. You're not bringing up new elements but rather practicing whisfull thinking.
Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum
-
Have you ever heard the saying "A $6 Billion dollar engineering project usually doesn't look like a 13 year old taped it together with stationary supplies and junkyard parts"?
Yes, I hear it all the time from someone who has no clue as to what he's talking about.
A photograph of a crudely put together space craft is photographic evidence of a crudely put together spacecraft. There is no denial of facts.
Have you examined the propulsion systems of the LM? Have you examined the guidance system of the LM? Have you examined the electrical system of the LM? Have you examined the life support system of the LM? Have you examined the any part of the LM other than the exterior?
-
A photograph of a crudely put together space craft is photographic evidence of a crudely put together spacecraft. There is no denial of facts.
This would be correct if "fact" was defined as "personal interpretation or failure due to ignorance".
-
I note you carefully ignoring my mention that regardless of how you label the Grumman engineers, the fact is they went out and built this spacecraft and therefore in your view are members of the conspiracy if it would not function, or if they're not, then the spacecraft has to be legitimate in terms of design.
Which is it, Mr Bishop?
You won't address this.
I see I was right.
-
i declare this thread a victory for space travel and the heard working people of NASA!
-
A photograph of a crudely built spacecraft is photographic evidence that it is crudely built. I don't know what your problem is.
You need to stop denying and face the facts.
If you're willing to accept a photograph as evidence then let me present this as evidence as well.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg/260px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg)
-
You say it yourself: it LOOKS LIKE. It doesn't mean it is. You're not bringing up new elements but rather practicing whisfull thinking.
What are you talking about? Of course photographic evidence of a amateurishly built space craft is evidence of an amateurishly built space craft. It is a very crude and repulsive thing.
NASA is claiming that the cardboard looking stuff are the craft's heat shields. What kind of space agency would affix heat shields to their $6 Billion dollar space ship with tape?
The whole thing is Bogus with a capital B.
Have you examined the propulsion systems of the LM? Have you examined the guidance system of the LM? Have you examined the electrical system of the LM? Have you examined the life support system of the LM? Have you examined the any part of the LM other than the exterior?
I would be happy to dissect the Lunar Lander if NASA were willing to put itself up to peer review; which for over 40 years have been unwilling.
But they cannot prove themselves, because we can already see that they're using TAPE to affix the heat shield to a craft which is supposed to land and launch from the surface of the moon. Would a real space agency affix the heat shield on with tape? No way. The whole thing is undeniably bogus.
I note you carefully ignoring my mention that regardless of how you label the Grumman engineers, the fact is they went out and built this spacecraft and therefore in your view are members of the conspiracy if it would not function, or if they're not, then the spacecraft has to be legitimate in terms of design.
Which is it, Mr Bishop?
You won't address this.
I see I was right.
What are you talking about? I already addressed that. Grumman contractors work for NASA and do what NASA tells them to do. If NASA says jump, they jump. If NASA says a Top Secret clearance is required, they need to get a Top Secret clearance.
The Non Disclosure Agreements at secret government facilities are a little different than the NDA's at private companies, namely that the government version ends with words in line with "... will be considered treason against the United States of America and will result in a military trial and is punishable by death."
-
To expand on Tom's point, NASA do the specs. Contractors get a license to print money in order to fulfil these specifications. A Grumman engineer will not bat an eyelid if he is told to make the thing out of tape, as long as he can keep bread on the table. When safety concerns about Apollo were raised, the accuser allegedly committed suicide and his report was never publicised. Something there doesn't quite match up.
-
The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.
They don't even need to be in on it.
-
Have you examined the propulsion systems of the LM? Have you examined the guidance system of the LM? Have you examined the electrical system of the LM? Have you examined the life support system of the LM? Have you examined the any part of the LM other than the exterior?
I would be happy to dissect the Lunar Lander if NASA were willing to put itself up to peer review; which for over 40 years have been unwilling.
Well, here's some documentation to get you started:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html
But they cannot prove themselves, because we can already see that they're using TAPE to affix the heat shield to a craft which is supposed to land and launch from the surface of the moon. Would a real space agency affix the heat shield on with tape? No way. The whole thing is undeniably bogus.
Why would a space craft designed to only ever operate in a vacuum need anything more than tape to affix reflective covers? Do you think that the solar wind is strong enough to blow these covers off?
-
What are you talking about? Of course photographic evidence of a amateurishly built space craft is evidence of an amateurishly built space craft. It is a very crude and repulsive thing.
NASA is claiming that the cardboard looking stuff are the craft's heat shields. What kind of space agency would affix heat shields to their $6 Billion dollar space ship with tape?
The whole thing is Bogus with a capital B.
They used heat shielding for basically blocking sunlight, that needed to be lightweight, used in an airless environment and 0 to 1/8 gravity, and was for something that was to be used once and then disposed of. There are other kinds of tape than 'scotch tape', some of which are designed for extreme environments and maximum adhesiveness.
Do you have any real reason why aesthetic appeal should have been such a concern that using heavier and more solid looking exterior shielding would have been would have been justified, thus requiring more materials and parts, more designing, more fabricating, more framework, bigger rockets, more fuel, etc, etc.
But they cannot prove themselves, because we can already see that they're using TAPE to affix the heat shield to a craft which is supposed to land and launch from the surface of the moon. Would a real space agency affix the heat shield on with tape? No way. The whole thing is undeniably bogus.
See my statement above.
-
The Non Disclosure Agreements at secret government facilities are a little different than the NDA's at private companies, namely that the government version ends with words in line with "... will be considered treason against the United States of America and will result in a military trial and is punishable by death."
Do you have any evidence of this outlandish claim?
I can find no reference on Google to your quote. Do we have to assume that you're lying again, like the binoculars and Monterey Bay?
-
Do you think that the solar wind is strong enough to blow these covers off?
No, but the several sustained g's during launch might.
-
Why would a space craft designed to only ever operate in a vacuum need anything more than tape to affix reflective covers? Do you think that the solar wind is strong enough to blow these covers off?
Please recall that the Lunar Lander has to land and blast off from the surface of the moon. It must endure extreme vibration, several g-forces, and the shock of impact. Not to mention the engine would also be blowing up dust at high velocities.
No real space agency would hold the heat shield and other components together with tape. How ridiculous!
Do you have any real reason why aesthetic appeal should have been such a concern that using heavier and more solid looking exterior shielding would have been would have been justified, thus requiring more materials and parts, more designing, more fabricating, more framework, bigger rockets, more fuel, etc, etc.
Do you have any real justification for why tape was used to hold together the lunar lander? Of course not.
A heat shield could have been welded, fastened, or integrated into the skin of the craft. Tape holding it is absolutely absurd.
-
No real space agency would hold the heat shield and other components together with tape. How ridiculous!
So your evidence is... your imagination of what a "real" space agency would do? A "real" space agency being something that you don't believe even exists. Alright then.
-
Have you examined the propulsion systems of the LM? Have you examined the guidance system of the LM? Have you examined the electrical system of the LM? Have you examined the life support system of the LM? Have you examined the any part of the LM other than the exterior?
I would be happy to dissect the Lunar Lander if NASA were willing to put itself up to peer review; which for over 40 years have been unwilling.
Well, here's some documentation to get you started:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html
But they cannot prove themselves, because we can already see that they're using TAPE to affix the heat shield to a craft which is supposed to land and launch from the surface of the moon. Would a real space agency affix the heat shield on with tape? No way. The whole thing is undeniably bogus.
Why would a space craft designed to only ever operate in a vacuum need anything more than tape to affix reflective covers? Do you think that the solar wind is strong enough to blow these covers off?
Correct me if I'm wrong; but wasn't the lunar module used for re-entry?
-
Have you examined the propulsion systems of the LM? Have you examined the guidance system of the LM? Have you examined the electrical system of the LM? Have you examined the life support system of the LM? Have you examined the any part of the LM other than the exterior?
I would be happy to dissect the Lunar Lander if NASA were willing to put itself up to peer review; which for over 40 years have been unwilling.
Well, here's some documentation to get you started:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html
But they cannot prove themselves, because we can already see that they're using TAPE to affix the heat shield to a craft which is supposed to land and launch from the surface of the moon. Would a real space agency affix the heat shield on with tape? No way. The whole thing is undeniably bogus.
Why would a space craft designed to only ever operate in a vacuum need anything more than tape to affix reflective covers? Do you think that the solar wind is strong enough to blow these covers off?
Correct me if I'm wrong; but wasn't the lunar module used for re-entry?
You're wrong. Only the CM was used for re-entry. Half of the LEM was left on the Moon.
-
No real space agency would hold the heat shield and other components together with tape. How ridiculous!
So your evidence is... your imagination of what a "real" space agency would do? A "real" space agency being something that you don't believe even exists. Alright then.
$6 Billion dollar engineering projects usually do not end up looking like a sloppy, crudely thrown together piece of crap easily mistaken for a 13 year old's art project after a trip to the junk yard and stationary store.
A real space agency would be composed of competent professionals with advanced degrees. They would build a craft which does not look like it was thrown together over a weekend.
Please show me any multi-billion dollar engineering project which looks as bad and amateur as this one. They simply do not exist. Billion dollar engineering projects are not crudely constructed. This is not opinion. This is fact.
-
So you confirm that your imagination is your only evidence.
-
So you confirm that your imagination is your only evidence.
I am hearing arguments that it's okay for the LEM to be poorly constructed. "Why can't tape be a proper building material for space ships???", etc.
Clearly I am speaking to children. The denialism and deliberate ignorance here is desperate and sad.
It is not opinion that tape is an improper building material for a multi-billion dollar space craft designed to explore foreign worlds. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that a real space ship would not be crudely thrown together.
-
Why would a space craft designed to only ever operate in a vacuum need anything more than tape to affix reflective covers? Do you think that the solar wind is strong enough to blow these covers off?
Please recall that the Lunar Lander has to land and blast off from the surface of the moon. It must endure extreme vibration, several g-forces, and the shock of impact. Not to mention the engine would also be blowing up dust at high velocities.
No real space agency would hold the heat shield and other components together with tape. How ridiculous!
Tom, you keep using the term "heat shield" as if the lunar module needs to enter some sort of atmosphere. It doesn't. All it needs to do is to reflect sunlight. I see no reason why gold covered foil taped to the lander would not be sufficient for that purpose. Also, since there is no atmosphere, I see no source of extreme vibration.
-
So you confirm that your imagination is your only evidence.
I am hearing arguments that it's okay for the LEM to be poorly constructed. "Tape holding together the heat shield and other components? Who cares... why can't tape be a proper building material for space ships???"
Clearly I am speaking to children. The denialism and deliberate ignorance here is incredibly sad.
It is not opinion that tape is an improper building material for a multi-billion dollar space craft designed to explore foreign worlds. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that a real space ship would not be crudely thrown together.
Then please provide an aerospace engineer's opinion of the LEM's performance supporting your outlandish claim that is was "crudely thrown together".
-
Also, since there is no atmosphere, I see no source of extreme vibration.
Again, what about launch?
-
So you confirm that your imagination is your only evidence.
I am hearing arguments that it's okay for the LEM to be poorly constructed. "Tape holding together the heat shield and other components? Who cares... why can't tape be a proper building material for space ships???"
Clearly I am speaking to children. The denialism and deliberate ignorance here is desperate and sad.
It is not opinion that tape is an improper building material for a multi-billion dollar space craft designed to explore foreign worlds. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that a real space ship would not be crudely thrown together.
Tom, if the NASA conspiracy is so elaborate then why would they allow something like this to be released?
Also could you please re-post the picture because I'm trying to verify whether this picture might just indeed be a 'science project' for a museum etc...
-
Tom, if the NASA conspiracy is so elaborate then why would they allow something like this to be released?
Probably because they are confident in the public's extreme delusion of globularism. Look at this thread.
-
Tom, if the NASA conspiracy is so elaborate then why would they allow something like this to be released?
Probably because they are confident in the public's extreme delusion of globularism. Look at this thread.
Or they have nothing to hide and allow the conspiracy theorists to get on with it because they know the truth speaks for itself.
I have an open mind on the situation, I just want to see the photograph and firstly ascertain it's credibility before going into the possible construction methods of the lander.
-
Also, since there is no atmosphere, I see no source of extreme vibration.
Again, what about launch?
What about it? Did you forget about the SLA?
-
Also, since there is no atmosphere, I see no source of extreme vibration.
Again, what about launch?
What about it? If you're referring to the launch from the earth, then rest assured that the LM is tucked away nicely and is well protected from any atmospheric friction or vibration.
Just how heavy do you think that these "heat shields" on the LM are? How much tape do you need to gift wrap a present? How much vibration would you need to damage that wrapping paper or cause the tape to come loose? The "heat shield" that Tom keeps going on about is basically the same space blanket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_blanket) used in modern survival kits and the like. Very thin, very light, very strong and very heat reflective.
-
So you confirm that your imagination is your only evidence.
I am hearing arguments that it's okay for the LEM to be poorly constructed. "Tape holding together the heat shield and other components? Who cares... why can't tape be a proper building material for space ships???"
Clearly I am speaking to children. The denialism and deliberate ignorance here is desperate and sad.
It is not opinion that tape is an improper building material for a multi-billion dollar space craft designed to explore foreign worlds. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that a real space ship would not be crudely thrown together.
Bla-bla-bla.
Nobody denies it LOOKS crudely built.
But you are stuck by the envelope of the LEM. May be you should research a tiny bit to discover what's under the envelope.
-
Also, since there is no atmosphere, I see no source of extreme vibration.
Again, what about launch?
What about it? If you're referring to the launch from the earth, then rest assured that the LM is tucked away nicely and is well protected from any atmospheric friction or vibration.
Of course it is free of atmospheric friction. Your vibration claim is laughable.
-
I note you carefully ignoring my mention that regardless of how you label the Grumman engineers, the fact is they went out and built this spacecraft and therefore in your view are members of the conspiracy if it would not function, or if they're not, then the spacecraft has to be legitimate in terms of design.
Which is it, Mr Bishop?
You won't address this.
I see I was right.
What are you talking about? I already addressed that. Grumman contractors work for NASA and do what NASA tells them to do. If NASA says jump, they jump. If NASA says a Top Secret clearance is required, they need to get a Top Secret clearance.
The Non Disclosure Agreements at secret government facilities are a little different than the NDA's at private companies, namely that the government version ends with words in line with "... will be considered treason against the United States of America and will result in a military trial and is punishable by death."
No, you are incorrectly answering what you think I said, because you don't bother reading posts properly. You did the same thing in my thread disproving lens distortion as the cause of curvature at altitude. Let me make it simple enough that a Child Of Five can understand it:
1: If Grumman contractors built a fake spaceship, then that means the employees at Grumman are members of the conspiracy because trained aerospace engineers would damn well notice if they built something that couldn't work.
2. If Grumman contractors built a functional spacecraft that would actually work in the supposed lunar environment, then they do not need to be members of the conspiracy as they merely completed a job to order, including designing it.
3. Tom Bishop claims both that the spacecraft is a non-functional mock up AND that the Grumman contractors were not Conspiracy members. These two facts cannot both be true for the reasons stated above.
-
1: If Grumman contractors built a fake spaceship, then that means the employees at Grumman are members of the conspiracy because trained aerospace engineers would damn well notice if they built something that couldn't work.
2. If Grumman contractors built a functional spacecraft that would actually work in the supposed lunar environment, then they do not need to be members of the conspiracy as they merely completed a job to order, including designing it.
3. Tom Bishop claims both that the spacecraft is a non-functional mock up AND that the Grumman contractors were not Conspiracy members. These two facts cannot both be true for the reasons stated above.
The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.
They don't even need to be in on it.
-
1: If Grumman contractors built a fake spaceship, then that means the employees at Grumman are members of the conspiracy because trained aerospace engineers would damn well notice if they built something that couldn't work.
2. If Grumman contractors built a functional spacecraft that would actually work in the supposed lunar environment, then they do not need to be members of the conspiracy as they merely completed a job to order, including designing it.
3. Tom Bishop claims both that the spacecraft is a non-functional mock up AND that the Grumman contractors were not Conspiracy members. These two facts cannot both be true for the reasons stated above.
The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.
They don't even need to be in on it.
Grumman designed the lander, idiot.
-
Tom the brain washing of the public is so entrenched in most people that the light of reason cannot shine through.
-
I don't even know if what we're looking at are prop landers for museums.
I think we should ascertain whether that's the case first before asking if the construction methods are right.
edit: Without looking at the pictures I think they probably are props because the real landers are currently on the moon!!
-
1: If Grumman contractors built a fake spaceship, then that means the employees at Grumman are members of the conspiracy because trained aerospace engineers would damn well notice if they built something that couldn't work.
2. If Grumman contractors built a functional spacecraft that would actually work in the supposed lunar environment, then they do not need to be members of the conspiracy as they merely completed a job to order, including designing it.
3. Tom Bishop claims both that the spacecraft is a non-functional mock up AND that the Grumman contractors were not Conspiracy members. These two facts cannot both be true for the reasons stated above.
The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.
They don't even need to be in on it.
Grumman designed the lander, idiot.
Personal attack, final warning.
-
Tom the brain washing of the public is so entrenched in most people that the light of reason cannot shine through.
I've yet to even see you present an actual argument, let alone provide evidence for your beliefs.
I don't think spreading the light of reason through garbage posts like this is a very effective strategy.
-
The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.
Source?
-
It is not opinion that tape is an improper building material for a multi-billion dollar space craft designed to explore foreign worlds.
If the spacecraft was held together with scotch and landing on Venus, then yes, you are correct.
-
1: If Grumman contractors built a fake spaceship, then that means the employees at Grumman are members of the conspiracy because trained aerospace engineers would damn well notice if they built something that couldn't work.
2. If Grumman contractors built a functional spacecraft that would actually work in the supposed lunar environment, then they do not need to be members of the conspiracy as they merely completed a job to order, including designing it.
3. Tom Bishop claims both that the spacecraft is a non-functional mock up AND that the Grumman contractors were not Conspiracy members. These two facts cannot both be true for the reasons stated above.
The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.
They don't even need to be in on it.
Grumman designed the lander, idiot.
Personal attack, final warning.
Attack on the hard working people of NASA are personal as well,
If the poster gets a "final" warning then all that attack NASA get warnings as well,
to be a moderator, means fair an equal treatment.
-
Grumman designed the lander, idiot.
A Grumman graphic design contractor may have provided the basic design of the lunar lander and the illustrations sent to the media and used in the proposal to congress. Not very convincing. But I suppose someone had to draw those illustrations.
I don't even know if what we're looking at are prop landers for museums.
I think we should ascertain whether that's the case first before asking if the construction methods are right.
edit: Without looking at the pictures I think they probably are props because the real landers are currently on the moon!!
If you had been reading the thread you wouldn't have missed the link in the last post of page 2 of this thread and you would know that the LEM picture in question was allegedly taken from the surface of the moon during an Apollo EVA.
The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.
Source?
A source for what? No claim was made. I was telling you how NASA could keep Grumman contractors in the dark by telling them they would be working on a museum prop.
On the same token, the people building the Moon Ball (http://blip.tv/file/3246084) could have been told that they were making a lunar lander simulator, rather than told that NASA was going to use it to fake the moon missions.
The demolition experts who set off explosives in the Arizona desert (http://blip.tv/file/3246099) could have been told that they were blowing up the desert because NASA wanted a perfect representation of the lunar surface (so perfect that aerial photos of the Arizona site and the post-EVA photo from the lander on its ascent to the command module look identical!).
-
Grumman designed the lander, idiot.
Grumman may have provided the basic design of the lunar lander and illustrations sent to the media and used in the proposal to congress. Not very convincing. But I suppose someone had to draw those illustrations.
I don't even know if what we're looking at are prop landers for museums.
I think we should ascertain whether that's the case first before asking if the construction methods are right.
edit: Without looking at the pictures I think they probably are props because the real landers are currently on the moon!!
If you saw the original link you would know that the picture in question was allegedly taken from the surface of the moon. I suggest you read the thread.
The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.
Source?
A source for what? No claim was made. I was telling you how NASA could keep Grumman contractors in the dark by telling them they would be working on a museum prop.
On the tame token, the people making the http://Moon Ball (http://blip.tv/file/3246084) could have been told that they were making a lunar lander simulator, rather than told that NASA was faking the moon missions.
The guys ]setting off explosives in the Arizona (http://[url=http://blip.tv/file/3246099) desert could have been told that they were blowing up the desert because NASA wanted a perfect representation of the lunar surface (so perfect that areal photo of the Arizona site and the post-launch photo from the lander look identical!)
Please fix your BBcodes. Thanks.
-
Tom, it's easy to come up with a lot of things that could have happened. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that any of what you say did happen?
-
Tom, it's easy to come up with a lot of things that could have happened. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that any of what you say did happen?
I was answering the question of how NASA could do this without involving the low tier workers in on the conspiracy.
What's your issue?
-
If you had been reading the thread you wouldn't have missed the link in the last post of page 2 of this thread and you would know that the LEM picture in question was allegedly taken from the surface of the moon during an Apollo EVA.
Thanks, I did read the thread but I missed that link. Now that I've actually seen the picture I don't see scotch tape at all.
What I see is a lunar module with heat, dust and EM blankets being secured to the space craft using a special kind of copper tape.
How would you secure those blankets to the craft? And the reason why it looks like curtain poles etc... is because the design required a minimal weight.
I don't see a poorly constructed lunar module at all.
-
Thanks, I did read the thread but I missed that link. Now that I've actually seen the picture I don't see scotch tape at all.
What I see is a lunar module with heat, dust and EM blankets being secured to the space craft using a special kind of copper tape.
Scotch is a brand.
Duct Tape is Scotch Tape (http://www.plumbersurplus.com/images/prod/6/3M-P2425-rw-147148-259498.jpg), Packing Tape is Scotch Tape (http://www.jmeacham.com/images/favorite.things/scotch.packaging.tape.jpg), and Copper Tape is Scotch Tape (http://etool.ca/RENDER/etool/1/91/345/3519.html).
How would you secure those blankets to the craft?
Not with tape. Consider that the craft has to
- experience the vibration and extreme g's from the initial launch from the earth while in storage
- endure the vibration of its engine when landing on the moon's surface
- endure any dust reflected off of the lunar surface from the engines
- it has to endure the shock of impact
Any one of these could dislodge tape.
No aerospace engineer in his right mind would secure things on a space ship with tape.
And the reason why it looks like curtain poles etc... is because the design required a minimal weight.
So minimal that they built the lunar lander out of cardboard, aluminum foil, and shower hangers, I'm sure.
-
Why would a space craft designed to only ever operate in a vacuum need anything more than tape to affix reflective covers? Do you think that the solar wind is strong enough to blow these covers off?
Please recall that the Lunar Lander has to land and blast off from the surface of the moon. It must endure extreme vibration, several g-forces, and the shock of impact. Not to mention the engine would also be blowing up dust at high velocities.
No real space agency would hold the heat shield and other components together with tape. How ridiculous!
The LEM has to land, the 'descent stage' half stays behind, and the 'ascent stage' half blasts off, and yes, it's the moon, so the gravity is 1/8 of earth. The LEM's weight of 32,399 lbs would be 5,507 lbs on the moon, and the ascent stage itself would be 1,704 lbs (not including crew) so how much G-force are they going to deal with blasting off from the moon (considering it's 17% of Earths gravity)
I've seen tape handle plenty of vibration. I've done some tape jobs myself (duct-tape holding a machete sheath to my quad) that held up to a lot of vibration just fine.
Shock of impact? How hard do you really think they landed? Of course though, you don't believe they even landed in the first place, so I guess it's a moot point.
The insulation is held together with tape, but other components? I see plenty of framework and other bracing using struts, nuts and bolts, etc.
Do you have any real reason why aesthetic appeal should have been such a concern that using heavier and more solid looking exterior shielding would have been would have been justified, thus requiring more materials and parts, more designing, more fabricating, more framework, bigger rockets, more fuel, etc, etc.
Do you have any real justification for why tape was used to hold together the lunar lander? Of course not.
Yes. I've been over it a few times now.
A heat shield could have been welded, fastened, or integrated into the skin of the craft. Tape holding it is absolutely absurd.
Welding would have been more weight, more cost, more fabricating (welding soft materials to solid metal doesn't work well, so the heat shielding would have had to have been thicker plating of some kind). Fastening would have again required more solid plating of some kind. (although it could have been done with thin materials, but would have required more work to achieve even load distribution at the anchor points.)
Integrated? Sure it's integrated into the skin of the craft. The sun shielding material basically is the outer skin, and I don't know what's absurd about it. It's holding the material in place. You can see it in the very photos you provided.
Thanks, I did read the thread but I missed that link. Now that I've actually seen the picture I don't see scotch tape at all.
What I see is a lunar module with heat, dust and EM blankets being secured to the space craft using a special kind of copper tape.
Scotch is a brand.
Duct Tape is Scotch Tape (http://www.plumbersurplus.com/images/prod/6/3M-P2425-rw-147148-259498.jpg), Packing Tape is Scotch Tape (http://www.jmeacham.com/images/favorite.things/scotch.packaging.tape.jpg), and Copper Tape is Scotch Tape (http://etool.ca/RENDER/etool/1/91/345/3519.html).
Indeed, 'Scotch' is a brand. Very good. So are 3M, Nashua, Ducks, and probably many more. 'Type' varies greatly though.
-
Thanks, I did read the thread but I missed that link. Now that I've actually seen the picture I don't see scotch tape at all.
What I see is a lunar module with heat, dust and EM blankets being secured to the space craft using a special kind of copper tape.
Scotch is a brand.
Duct Tape is Scotch Tape (http://www.plumbersurplus.com/images/prod/6/3M-P2425-rw-147148-259498.jpg), Packing Tape is Scotch Tape (http://www.jmeacham.com/images/favorite.things/scotch.packaging.tape.jpg), and Copper Tape is Scotch Tape (http://etool.ca/RENDER/etool/1/91/345/3519.html).
How would you secure those blankets to the craft?
Not with tape. Consider that the craft has to
- experience the vibration and extreme g's from the surface of the earth while in storage
- endure the vibration of its engine when landing on the moon's surface
- endure any dust reflected off of the lunar surface from the engines
- it has to endure the shock of impact
Any one of these could dislodge tape.
No aerospace engineer in his right mind would secure things on a space ship with tape.
And the reason why it looks like curtain poles etc... is because the design required a minimal weight.
So minimal that they built the lunar lander out of cardboard, aluminum foil, and shower hangers, I'm sure.
You have no clue of the specificaions of the materials used, have you?
You repeat "tape" like a recording machine, but what kind of tape is it?
-
Not with tape. Consider that the craft has to
- experience the vibration and extreme g's from the surface of the earth while in storage
- endure the vibration of its engine when landing on the moon's surface
- endure any dust reflected off of the lunar surface from the engines
- it has to endure the shock of impact
Any one of these could dislodge tape.
No aerospace engineer in his right mind would secure things on a space ship with tape.
And the reason why it looks like curtain poles etc... is because the design required a minimal weight.
So minimal that they built the lunar lander out of cardboard, aluminum foil, and shower hangers, I'm sure.
Incorrect.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3M-Industrial/Adhesives/Product/Bonding-Tapes/VHB-Tape/
depends on the type of tape used.
-
Tape is for hillbillies to fix things, not NASA.
-
Tape is for hillbillies to fix things, not NASA.
Incorrect.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3M-Industrial/Adhesives/Product/Bonding-Tapes/VHB-Tape/
depends on the type of tape used.
-
The LEM has to land, the 'descent stage' half stays behind, and the 'ascent stage' half blasts off, and yes, it's the moon, so the gravity is 1/8 of earth. The LEM's weight of 32,399 lbs would be 5,507 lbs on the moon, and the ascent stage itself would be 1,704 lbs (not including crew) so how much G-force are they going to deal with blasting off from the moon (considering it's 17% of Earths gravity)
Incorrect. It also has to endure the vibration and G-Forces from the initial launch of the Saturn V, which is not trivial.
Shock of impact? How hard do you really think they landed? Of course though, you don't believe they even landed in the first place, so I guess it's a moot point.
No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.
The insulation is held together with tape, but other components? I see plenty of framework and other bracing using struts, nuts and bolts, etc.
There aren't any nuts or bolts. Stop lying.
-
Thanks, I did read the thread but I missed that link. Now that I've actually seen the picture I don't see scotch tape at all.
What I see is a lunar module with heat, dust and EM blankets being secured to the space craft using a special kind of copper tape.
Scotch is a brand.
Duct Tape is Scotch Tape (http://www.plumbersurplus.com/images/prod/6/3M-P2425-rw-147148-259498.jpg), Packing Tape is Scotch Tape (http://www.jmeacham.com/images/favorite.things/scotch.packaging.tape.jpg), and Copper Tape is Scotch Tape (http://etool.ca/RENDER/etool/1/91/345/3519.html).
How would you secure those blankets to the craft?
Not with tape. Consider that the craft has to
- experience the vibration and extreme g's from the initial launch from the earth while in storage
- endure the vibration of its engine when landing on the moon's surface
- endure any dust reflected off of the lunar surface from the engines
- it has to endure the shock of impact
Any one of these could dislodge tape.
No aerospace engineer in his right mind would secure things on a space ship with tape.
And the reason why it looks like curtain poles etc... is because the design required a minimal weight.
So minimal that they built the lunar lander out of cardboard, aluminum foil, and shower hangers, I'm sure.
It certainly looks like the 'tape' used in that picture is a little different to the type you'd get commercially, but I have no evidence to back that up only what I can see in the picture.
Have you ever tried to 'unstick' tape from something through vibration alone? I suggest you go and try it.
The amount of 'force' the tape would need to hold would be related to the mass of the blankets in question assuming that's what the 'tape' was for. However it looks like the 'tape' was used to seal off areas so the 'blankets' protect more of the space crafts components, it wasn't used to hold the 'blankets' up.
And in the picture I see no cardboard, aluminum foil or shower hangers.
-
Tom, it's easy to come up with a lot of things that could have happened. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that any of what you say did happen?
I was answering the question of how NASA could do this without involving the low tier workers in on the conspiracy.
What's your issue?
My issue is that you have nothing but speculation to support your case.
No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.
How many G-forces does it take to dislodge a space blanket taped to a lunar lander? Also, how would you know what a legitimate space agency would or would not do if you claim that there are no legitimate space agencies to begin with?
-
The LEM has to land, the 'descent stage' half stays behind, and the 'ascent stage' half blasts off, and yes, it's the moon, so the gravity is 1/8 of earth. The LEM's weight of 32,399 lbs would be 5,507 lbs on the moon, and the ascent stage itself would be 1,704 lbs (not including crew) so how much G-force are they going to deal with blasting off from the moon (considering it's 17% of Earths gravity)
Incorrect. It also has to endure the vibration and G-Forces from the initial launch of the Saturn V, which is not trivial.
Shock of impact? How hard do you really think they landed? Of course though, you don't believe they even landed in the first place, so I guess it's a moot point.
No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.
Tom, if the astronauts themselves can survive the take-off, then I think the tape can. Some human tissue is weaker than industrial tape, I think you'll find.
-
Just to complete the destruction of Tom Bishop's latest wild speculation (like we did on the Apollo 16 site reuse), I point out that Tom Bishop without merit argues that the 'tape' is the only way the heat shield was kept in place.
-
You're right, there also appear to be some staples in there. Really, they might as well have just sewn it on.
-
No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.
Explain.
Where does this fantastic knowledge come from?
-
No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.
Explain.
Where does this fantastic knowledge come from?
It comes from common sense, and being able to think independently. Some people can see through a bunch of lies and some can't. I guess you are one of the gullible ones.
-
No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.
Explain.
Where does this fantastic knowledge come from?
It comes from common sense, and being able to think independently. Some people can see through a bunch of lies and some can't. I guess you are one of the gullible ones.
Common sense would follow that tape is sticky, and NASA used it to stick something together, which seems reasonable. Stupidity would follow that NASA used tape, and therefore is a giant conspiracy, which seems unreasonable.
-
No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.
Explain.
Where does this fantastic knowledge come from?
It comes from common sense, and being able to think independently. Some people can see through a bunch of lies and some can't. I guess you are one of the gullible ones.
I never said I don't believe Tom Bishop, I say that he didn't bring any kind of grounds to his claims and furthermore that his common sense can be seriously questioned.
I am not gullible in a way that I don't swallow everything that Tim Bishop says.
-
No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.
Explain.
Where does this fantastic knowledge come from?
It comes from common sense, and being able to think independently. Some people can see through a bunch of lies and some can't. I guess you are one of the gullible ones.
Common sense you say? What does your common sense say is a reasonable way to attach a light weight film of heat reflective material to the outside of a lunar lander?
-
No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.
Explain.
Where does this fantastic knowledge come from?
It comes from common sense, and being able to think independently. Some people can see through a bunch of lies and some can't. I guess you are one of the gullible ones.
Common sense you say? What does your common sense say is a reasonable way to attach a light weight film of heat reflective material to the outside of a lunar lander?
First of all "Markjo," that doesn't look like a space blanket at all on the Lunar Lander. It looks like CARDBOARD.
Space Blanket:
(http://images.scorpionsurvival.com/products/ShelterandWarmth/SWSB.jpg)
Cardboard:
(http://grungetextures.com/watermark2.php?i=1034)
Lunar Lander
(http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11flymetothemoon.jpg)
Secondly, why are you still arguing that haphazardly applied pieces of tape is a proper building technique to hold together a space ship? Don't you see how stupid that sounds?
-
(http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11flymetothemoon.jpg)
Secondly, why are you still arguing that haphazardly applied pieces of tape is a proper building technique to hold together a space ship? Don't you see how stupid that sounds?
Holding together space blankets and covers is not the same as holding together a space craft.
-
Holding together space blankets and covers is not the same as holding together a space craft.
Once more, I do not see any 'space blanket', but I do see something which looks uncannily similar to cardboard.
-
Holding together space blankets and covers is not the same as holding together a space craft.
Once more, I do not see any 'space blanket', but I do see something which looks uncannily similar to cardboard.
What do you think is wrapped around the descent stage?
-
Holding together space blankets and covers is not the same as holding together a space craft.
Once more, I do not see any 'space blanket', but I do see something which looks uncannily similar to cardboard.
OK, this is the first concession from Tom. It looks similar. Gentlemen, we are making progress.
-
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html
Here is the source for that picture. There are many, many more pictures as well.
-
Holding together space blankets and covers is not the same as holding together a space craft.
Once more, I do not see any 'space blanket', but I do see something which looks uncannily similar to cardboard.
What do you think is wrapped around the descent stage?
If the gold foil is your space blanket then we cannot really see how it is attached to the lander with in that photo. I'm not sure why you brought it up. I'm talking about the cardboard.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html
Here is the source for that picture. There are many, many more pictures as well.
Yes, many pictures of taped together space-craft.
(http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/15maskingtape.jpg)
(high res (http://ajassanyt.webege.com/user/cimage/AS15-87-11839HR.jpg))
-
Holding together space blankets and covers is not the same as holding together a space craft.
Once more, I do not see any 'space blanket', but I do see something which looks uncannily similar to cardboard.
What do you think is wrapped around the descent stage?
If the gold foil is your space blanket then we cannot really see how it is attached to the lander with in that photo. I'm not sure why you brought it up. I'm talking about the cardboard.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html
Here is the source for that picture. There are many, many more pictures as well.
Yes, man pictures of taped together lunar landers.
(http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/15maskingtape.jpg)
(high res (http://ajassanyt.webege.com/user/cimage/AS15-87-11839HR.jpg))
I'm sorry Tom but i don't see any masking tape or a craft that's not been constructed properly. As its been explained to you that 'special tape' is a plausible material to use when securing the 'blankets' to the craft, even with the stresses and vibrations during take off. I think someone made a good comment in this thread that a human being would need to experience the stresses of take off which means the g forces etc... are probably not as severe as you're imaging them to be.
Also if you look at more of those pictures it clearly shows how intricate the Apollo projects were.
-
Yes, man pictures of taped together lunar landers.
(http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/15maskingtape.jpg)
Are you under the mistaken impression that the only use of that yellow tape is to hold cardboard together?
Let's review your arrogant, and unsupported claims here:
- The yellow strips in the photo are tape.
- The alleged tape is holding something together.
- The something is cardboard.
- No other means could possibly be used to hold the alleged cardboard together.
You fail again, Tom Bishop.
-
I'm sorry Tom but i don't see any masking tape or a craft that's not been constructed properly. As its been explained to you that 'special tape' is a plausible material to use when securing the 'blankets' to the craft, even with the stresses and vibrations during take off. I think someone made a good comment in this thread that a human being would need to experience the stresses of take off which means the g forces etc... are probably not as severe as you're imaging them to be.
Also if you look at more of those pictures it clearly shows how intricate the Apollo projects were.
In the last image I posted the tape is holding together more than the blankets. It's holding the structural integrity of the craft together.
In the first Lunar Lander image (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander) I provided, zoom into white external walls of the craft. You can see that the integrity of the walls are clearly in shambles and falling apart.
Billions of dollars of research and development, I'm sure...
-
I'm sorry Tom but i don't see any masking tape or a craft that's not been constructed properly. As its been explained to you that 'special tape' is a plausible material to use when securing the 'blankets' to the craft, even with the stresses and vibrations during take off. I think someone made a good comment in this thread that a human being would need to experience the stresses of take off which means the g forces etc... are probably not as severe as you're imaging them to be.
Also if you look at more of those pictures it clearly shows how intricate the Apollo projects were.
In the last image I posted the tape is holding together more than the blankets. It's holding the structural integrity of the craft together.
In the first Lunar Lander image (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander) I provided, zoom into white external walls of the craft. You can see that the integrity of the walls are clearly in shambles and falling apart.
Billions of dollars of research and development, I'm sure...
That's really redundant. How did you determine that the tape is holding anything together? As far as I know, you can't reliably infer what's holding something together from a photo. Do tell us about your amazing abilities, and please no binoculars.
-
That's really redundant. How did you determine that the tape is holding anything together? As far as I know, you can't reliably infer what's holding something together from a photo. Do tell us about your amazing abilities, and please no binoculars.
Please zoom into the external white walls of the first Lunar Lander photo (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander) I provided. From this angle you can clearly see that the external white walls are in shambles. They don't even align up properly. NASA is using tape to hold this monstrosity of a space ship together.
-
I'm sorry Tom but i don't see any masking tape or a craft that's not been constructed properly. As its been explained to you that 'special tape' is a plausible material to use when securing the 'blankets' to the craft, even with the stresses and vibrations during take off. I think someone made a good comment in this thread that a human being would need to experience the stresses of take off which means the g forces etc... are probably not as severe as you're imaging them to be.
Also if you look at more of those pictures it clearly shows how intricate the Apollo projects were.
In the last image I posted the tape is holding together more than the blankets. It's holding the structural integrity of the craft together.
In the first Lunar Lander image (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander) I provided, zoom into white external walls of the craft. You can see that the integrity of the walls are clearly in shambles and falling apart.
Billions of dollars of research and development, I'm sure...
Again looking at the pictures I can't see how you came to the conclusion that the 'tape' is holding the structural integrity of the craft together.
-
I'm sorry Tom but i don't see any masking tape or a craft that's not been constructed properly. As its been explained to you that 'special tape' is a plausible material to use when securing the 'blankets' to the craft, even with the stresses and vibrations during take off. I think someone made a good comment in this thread that a human being would need to experience the stresses of take off which means the g forces etc... are probably not as severe as you're imaging them to be.
Also if you look at more of those pictures it clearly shows how intricate the Apollo projects were.
In the last image I posted the tape is holding together more than the blankets. It's holding the structural integrity of the craft together.
In the first Lunar Lander image (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander) I provided, zoom into white external walls of the craft. You can see that the integrity of the walls are clearly in shambles and falling apart.
Billions of dollars of research and development, I'm sure...
Again looking at the pictures I can't see how you came to the conclusion that the 'tape' is holding the structural integrity of the craft together.
Are those white walls not part of the craft's structure?
It's shameful that anyone would sit here defending criminals. How repulsive.
-
That's really redundant. How did you determine that the tape is holding anything together? As far as I know, you can't reliably infer what's holding something together from a photo. Do tell us about your amazing abilities, and please no binoculars.
Please zoom into the external white walls of the first Lunar Lander photo (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander) I provided. You can clearly see that the external white walls are in shambles. They don't even light up properly. NASA is using tape to hold this monstrosity of a space ship together.
How absurd.
I still don't see how you can make the claim that the tape is holding the spaceship together. Please elaborate. I use tape to patch small hole, to mark a location ('X' marks the spot.), and a host of other reasons.
Then tell us how you can make the claim that it's only the tape holding the spaceship together.
It's shameful that anyone would sit here defending criminals. How repulsive.
It's shameful that anyone would sit here and falsely accuse good, hard-working people of crime. How repulsive.
-
I still don't see how you can make the claim that the tape is holding the spaceship together. Please elaborate. I use tape to patch small hole, to mark a location ('X' marks the spot.), and a host of other reasons.
Then tell us how you can make the claim that it's only the tape holding the spaceship together.
Tape is placed across the seams of the wall sections. It's meant to hold it together, not to "mark a location."
The whole matter is disgusting. The idea of NASA sending a space ship to the moon held together with tape is absurd beyond words.
-
I'm sorry Tom but i don't see any masking tape or a craft that's not been constructed properly. As its been explained to you that 'special tape' is a plausible material to use when securing the 'blankets' to the craft, even with the stresses and vibrations during take off. I think someone made a good comment in this thread that a human being would need to experience the stresses of take off which means the g forces etc... are probably not as severe as you're imaging them to be.
Also if you look at more of those pictures it clearly shows how intricate the Apollo projects were.
In the last image I posted the tape is holding together more than the blankets. It's holding the structural integrity of the craft together.
In the first Lunar Lander image (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander) I provided, zoom into white external walls of the craft. You can see that the integrity of the walls are clearly in shambles and falling apart.
Billions of dollars of research and development, I'm sure...
Again looking at the pictures I can't see how you came to the conclusion that the 'tape' is holding the structural integrity of the craft together.
Are those white walls not part of the craft's structure?
It's shameful that anyone would sit here defending criminals. How repulsive.
I'm not defending anyone. I'm just looking at the pictures.
If you find that repulsive so be it.
And with regards to the 'white walls (sheets of white stuff)' could it be possible that those sheets were only meant to protect the craft as it left the main compartment of the rocket (dunno what it's called properly)?
-
I still don't see how you can make the claim that the tape is holding the spaceship together. Please elaborate. I use tape to patch small hole, to mark a location ('X' marks the spot.), and a host of other reasons.
Then tell us how you can make the claim that it's only the tape holding the spaceship together.
Tape is placed across the seams of the wall sections. It's meant to hold it together, not to "mark a location."
The whole matter is disgusting. The idea of NASA sending a space ship to the moon held together with tape is absurd beyond words.
Again, you're make stupid assumptions. How do you know that the "tape" (You haven't even determined that it is tape) is the only thing holding the wall sections together. Could it be that there were a small leaks in the sealed cargo bay and they use tape to seal the leaks? Just because it's across a seam is not sufficient reason to conclude that it's holding anything together. Why couldn't the tape be there to mark that edge, say perhaps as a grip point during assembly?
That you make so many stupid assumptions so often is absurd beyond words.
And with regards to the 'white walls (sheets of white stuff)' could it be possible that those sheets were only meant to protect the craft as it left the main compartment of the rocket (dunno what it's called properly)?
The Spacecraft Lunar Module Adapter (SLA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_(spacecraft)#Spacecraft_Lunar_Module_Adapter_.28SLA.29)
-
Are those white walls not part of the craft's structure?
No, they are not. They merely covers for the aft equipment bay.
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg)
-
I'd like to see Tom explain why, if NASA were faking a mission and wanted to therefore make it believable, would they not make a spacecraft that looked like the public imagining of what a spacecraft looks like (like the image in Tom's head)? Why would they make something that looked like this if their only aim was to pretend? It makes no sense.
-
Again, you're make stupid assumptions. How do you know that the "tape" (You haven't even determined that it is tape) is the only thing holding the wall sections together. Could it be that there were a small leaks in the sealed cargo bay and they use tape to seal the leaks? Just because it's across a seam is not sufficient reason to conclude that it's holding anything together. Why couldn't the tape be there to mark that edge, say perhaps as a grip point during assembly?
That you make so many stupid assumptions so often is absurd beyond words.
The tape isn't "marking the edge as a grip point" It's clearly holding down sections of the white external wall.
And no, I'm not making assumptions. I've already provided a shot of the white wall from another angle showing how flimsy and shoddily put together it is. The tape is clearly meant to keep it from falling apart.
I've provided clear photographic evidence that the white walls of the craft are shoddy and crudely put together. I don't see how anyone can call it a stupid assumption.
No, they are not. They merely covers for the aft equipment bay.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg
I see a lot of tape in that junkyard of a picture. Why are the important internal components of a space ship being held together with tape?
I'd like to see Tom explain why, if NASA were faking a mission and wanted to therefore make it believable, would they not make a spacecraft that looked like the public imagining of what a spacecraft looks like (like the image in Tom's head)? Why would they make something that looked like this if their only aim was to pretend? It makes no sense.
The crafts used in the Apollo missions are not original. The concept of a Lunar Lander actually comes from an old pre-apollo movie called Frau im Mond, a silent-era movie about a mission to the moon. The three stage Saturn V, the Vehicle Assembly Building, the giant rolling launch pad which carries the Saturn V vertically, the dramatic countdown sequence, the floating water globule scenes, the spider lander, are all blatant rip-offs of Frau im Mond.
If you want to learn more about this here's a documentary for you to watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
The topic of Frau im Mond starts at the 24 minute mark
The topic of the Apollo Lander hoax starts at 54:27
-
No, they are not. They merely covers for the aft equipment bay.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg)
I see a lot of tape in that junkyard of a picture. Why are the important internal components of a space ship being held with tape?
Perhaps because the engineers who designed the LM decided that tape was the appropriate fastener in those particular areas. It's also nice to know that you can judge the quality of the components from just a photograph. Keep up the good job of upholding the highest standards of Zeteticism.
-
Again, you're make stupid assumptions. How do you know that the "tape" (You haven't even determined that it is tape) is the only thing holding the wall sections together. Could it be that there were a small leaks in the sealed cargo bay and they use tape to seal the leaks? Just because it's across a seam is not sufficient reason to conclude that it's holding anything together. Why couldn't the tape be there to mark that edge, say perhaps as a grip point during assembly?
That you make so many stupid assumptions so often is absurd beyond words.
The tape isn't "marking the edge as a grip point" It's clearly holding down sections of the white external wall.
And no, I'm not making assumptions. I've already provided a shot of the white wall from another angle showing how flimsy and shoddily put together it is. The tape is clearly meant to keep it from falling apart.
I've provided clear photographic evidence that the white walls of the craft are shoddy and crudely put together. I don't see how anyone can call it a stupid assumption.
<sigh> Again, do tell us how you know that the tape is clearly holding down sections of the white external wall. Do tell us how you know the there is not something else, like glue or solder, holding down sections of the white external wall. Tell us how you know that the tape is not being used for repair or marking.
Oh, and just to encourage your accuracy... saying something does not make it true--no matter how many times you say it. Saying something is clear does not meet even the vaguest notion of Science. You can't even determine if the yellow strips are tape. They could be strip magnets. They could be glued on. You don't know, and you're silly to believe without evidence, that they are tape.
Your stupid assumptions really are absurd, but you're now just repeating your unsupported claims.
-
I'd like to see Tom explain why, if NASA were faking a mission and wanted to therefore make it believable, would they not make a spacecraft that looked like the public imagining of what a spacecraft looks like (like the image in Tom's head)? Why would they make something that looked like this if their only aim was to pretend? It makes no sense.
The crafts used in the Apollo missions are not original. The concept of a Lunar Lander actually comes from an old pre-apollo movie called Frau im Mond, a silent-era movie about a mission to the moon. The three stage Saturn V, the Vehicle Assembly Building, the giant rolling launch pad which carries the Saturn V vertically, the dramatic countdown sequence, the floating water globule scenes, the spider lander, are all blatant rip-offs of Frau im Mond.
So what you're saying is that NASA made the lunar lander look ropey because they based it on a poor quality silent movie prop without any thought of making it look more convincing?
Well, I'm convinced. Let us leave the thread my fellow RE'ers, for we are defeated in debate. :P
-
The LEM has to land, the 'descent stage' half stays behind, and the 'ascent stage' half blasts off, and yes, it's the moon, so the gravity is 1/8 of earth. The LEM's weight of 32,399 lbs would be 5,507 lbs on the moon, and the ascent stage itself would be 1,704 lbs (not including crew) so how much G-force are they going to deal with blasting off from the moon (considering it's 17% of Earths gravity)
Incorrect. It also has to endure the vibration and G-Forces from the initial launch of the Saturn V, which is not trivial.
4g's according to the Apollo 15 log I read.
Shock of impact? How hard do you really think they landed? Of course though, you don't believe they even landed in the first place, so I guess it's a moot point.
No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.
Do you have any experience with tape at all? I've used tape both temporarily and permanently in various applications. If the surface is clean and dry, it sticks.
I've used transparent adhesive vinyl sheets (8.5x11 sheet of tape basically) cut out to cover stickers I made using 8.5x11 label paper. (both can be commonly found at sign-pro or office depot, etc) I've applied them to my 4-wheeler over the last 8 years. The stickers are on semi-rigid plastic, and exposed to sunlight, snow, hot weather, cold weather, rain, mud, sand, and excessive vibrations from rough terrain, engine, etc, and they are doing fine. I've used the same thing on my snowboard too.
There's not enough vibration over a long enough time during the apollo mission to make tape come loose (if it would ever come loose at all from vibration).
The insulation is held together with tape, but other components? I see plenty of framework and other bracing using struts, nuts and bolts, etc.
There aren't any nuts or bolts. Stop lying.
Oh the irony of you telling me to stop lying after some of the stuff I've seen you post in the past.
Do you have a source that tells how they're fastened together, or are you basing it on 'I can't see any nuts and bolts in the picture, therefore there are none'?
No, they are not. They merely covers for the aft equipment bay.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg
I see a lot of tape in that junkyard of a picture. Why are the important internal components of a space ship being held together with tape?
I see one component in all that with a layer of some outer covering using some tape.
In the last image I posted the tape is holding together more than the blankets. It's holding the structural integrity of the craft together.
I see it being used on the outer covering and wrapping. Not the actual structural integrity. Stop lying.
-
10 pages and Tom Bishop is still assuming. No proofs, just looks!
-
So what you're saying is that NASA made the lunar lander look ropey because they based it on a poor quality silent movie prop without any thought of making it look more convincing?
Nope. It's ropey because NASA isn't really engineering multi-billion dollar space craft.
Do you have any experience with tape at all? I've used tape both temporarily and permanently in various applications. If the surface is clean and dry, it sticks.
No one in their right mind would use tape to keep a space ship together.
There's not enough vibration over a long enough time during the apollo mission to make tape come loose (if it would ever come loose at all from vibration).
Why risk it?
The insulation is held together with tape, but other components? I see plenty of framework and other bracing using struts, nuts and bolts, etc.
There aren't any nuts or bolts. Stop lying.
Oh the irony of you telling me to stop lying after some of the stuff I've seen you post in the past.
Do you have a source that tells how they're fastened together, or are you basing it on 'I can't see any nuts and bolts in the picture, therefore there are none'?
You are the one who said that you could see nuts and bolts when I posted the image -- "The insulation is held together with tape, but other components? I see plenty of framework and other bracing using struts, nuts and bolts, etc."
There aren't any nuts or bolts. Please point them out for us.
I see it being used on the outer covering and wrapping. Not the actual structural integrity. Stop lying.
Curious that a space agency would secure together the outer walls of a spacecraft with tape of all things. One would think that the outer walls would be somewhat important.
-
10 pages and Tom Bishop is still assuming. No proofs, just looks!
Photographic evidence is proof dumbshoe.
-
10 pages and Tom Bishop is still assuming. No proofs, just looks!
Photographic evidence is proof dumbshoe.
Except when when it disagrees with your position. Also, please refrain from name calling.
-
10 pages and Tom Bishop is still assuming. No proofs, just looks!
Photographic evidence is proof dumbshoe.
Even if you saw the LEM in real, you would say: "it looks fake, therefore it is". This has been your point all along!
-
10 pages and Tom Bishop is still assuming. No proofs, just looks!
Photographic evidence is proof dumbshoe.
Even if you saw the LEM in real, you would say: "it looks fake, therefore it is". This has been your point all along!
Photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is fake is evidence that it is fake. I don't know what your problem is.
-
Photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is fake is evidence that it is fake. I don't know what your problem is.
The problem is that you haven't provided any photographic evidence that the lunar lander is fake. The only thing that you've done is go on and on about how some loose fitting covers make the LM crude. Well, the LM is 1960s technology, so I suppose that it is crude by modern standards. That does not, however, prove that the LM is fake.
-
Photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is fake is evidence that it is fake. I don't know what your problem is.
The problem is that you haven't provided any photographic evidence that the lunar lander is fake. The only thing that you've done is go on and on about how some loose fitting covers make the LM crude. Well, the LM is 1960s technology, so I suppose that it is crude by modern standards. That does not, however, prove that the LM is fake.
NASA has provided the evidence of the lander being fake.
-
NASA has provided the evidence of the lander being fake.
Would you care to support this claim?
-
The picture with tape is sufficient evidence of fakery.
-
The picture with tape is sufficient evidence of fakery.
You and Tom have no idea what is a proof and what is scientific reasoning.
If this is your standard for accepting proofs, then you are ready to swallow eerything, ie FET.
-
The picture with tape is sufficient evidence of fakery.
Or, it's sufficient evidence that you have no idea as to how the LM was designed and built.
-
The picture with tape is sufficient evidence of fakery.
Or, it's sufficient evidence that you have no idea as to how the LM was designed and built.
I do have an idea how it was built, it was taped together.
-
The picture with tape is sufficient evidence of fakery.
Or, it's sufficient evidence that you have no idea as to how the LM was designed and built.
I do have an idea how it was built, it was taped together.
What evidence do you have to support that claim?
-
Yes ,NASA has released pictures of it.
-
Yes ,NASA has released pictures of it.
Then perhaps you would be willing to share some of these pictures with us.
-
Yes ,NASA has released pictures of it.
Then perhaps you would be willing to share some of these pictures with us.
Please read the thread. This really is tiring. Just earlier I believe you were arguing something along the lines of "why isn't tape and cardboard proper construction materials for a lunar lander?"
The thing is a monstrosity.
-
Yes ,NASA has released pictures of it.
Then perhaps you would be willing to share some of these pictures with us.
Please read the thread. This really is tiring. Just earlier I believe you were arguing something along the lines of "why isn't tape and cardboard proper construction materials for a lunar lander?"
The thing is a monstrosity.
Tom people are telling you that those pictures don't provide the evidence of what you're claiming and I agree with them.
Stop being so blind and closed minded.
-
Tom people are telling you that those pictures don't provide the evidence of what you're claiming and I agree with them.
Stop being so blind and closed minded.
The pictures absolutely provide evidence of a crudely put together spacecraft. It has been agreed in this thread that the pictures seem to show a crudely put together space craft, but that I needed to prove the difference between "looks" and "is". What a stupid statement. If a rock looks like a rock then it is a rock until someone shows that it's a rubber fake. If a crudely put together spaceship looks like a crudely put together rspaceship then it is crudly put together until demonstrated otherwise. There is no denial of facts.
-
Tom people are telling you that those pictures don't provide the evidence of what you're claiming and I agree with them.
Stop being so blind and closed minded.
The pictures absolutely provide evidence of a crudely put together spacecraft. It has been agreed in this thread that the pictures seem to show a crudely put together space craft, but that I needed to prove the difference between "looks" and "is". What a stupid statement. If a rock looks like a rock then it is a rock until someone shows that it's a rubber fake. If a crudely put together spaceship looks like a crudely put together rspaceship then it is crudly put together until demonstrated otherwise. There is no denial of facts.
You are twisting the argument (as usual).
YOU have to prove that the LEM is a fake because, so far, it has been used to land and depart from the Moon.
Not the other way round. The same way as YOU have to prove FET and disprove RET.
-
Tom people are telling you that those pictures don't provide the evidence of what you're claiming and I agree with them.
Stop being so blind and closed minded.
The pictures absolutely provide evidence of a crudely put together spacecraft. It has been agreed in this thread that the pictures seem to show a crudely put together space craft, but that I needed to prove the difference between "looks" and "is". What a stupid statement. If a rock looks like a rock then it is a rock until someone shows that it's a rubber fake. If a crudely put together spaceship looks like a crudely put together rspaceship then it is crudly put together until demonstrated otherwise. There is no denial of facts.
You are twisting the argument (as usual).
YOU have to prove that the LEM is a fake because, so far, it has been used to land and depart from the Moon.
Not the other way round. The same way as YOU have to prove FET and disprove RET.
No, "so far, it has been used to land and depart from the surface of the moon." The evidence for a moon landing is shoddy and seems to be hastily put together.
If you watch the Apollo videos NASA doesn't even put an appropriate delay between the astronauts in the LEM and mission control, to account for the moon's distance. The astronauts and Huston are communicating faster than the speed of light.
"The Moon is 350-400,000km away from Earth, that is 1.25-1.4 Light Seconds. Yet the Communications Between Earth & The "Moon" have no Perceivable Delay. If they were really on the Moon there would have been a delay of 2.5-2.8 seconds between Ground Control and the Astronauts on the Surface of the Moon."
What a joke.
-
The pictures absolutely provide evidence of a crudely put together spacecraft. It has been agreed in this thread that the pictures seem to show a crudely put together space craft, but that I needed to prove the difference between "looks" and "is". What a stupid statement.
It's not stupid at all. It's called "burden of proof". You made the claim that the lunar module if fake, therefore it's up to you to support that claim. So far you have not met that burden with sufficient evidence.
Besides, have you never heard the term "crude but effective"? This is 1960s era technology; of course it looks crude. A lot of 1960s era technology looks crude by today's standards but worked just fine.
-
Do you have any experience with tape at all? I've used tape both temporarily and permanently in various applications. If the surface is clean and dry, it sticks.
No one in their right mind would use tape to keep a space ship together.
You're right, that's why it's used on the outer-most lightweight sunlight shielding and plastic wrap.
There's not enough vibration over a long enough time during the apollo mission to make tape come loose (if it would ever come loose at all from vibration).
Why risk it?
Because the tape is strong, lightweight, and adequate for the lightweight material it's holding.
The insulation is held together with tape, but other components? I see plenty of framework and other bracing using struts, nuts and bolts, etc.
There aren't any nuts or bolts. Stop lying.
Oh the irony of you telling me to stop lying after some of the stuff I've seen you post in the past.
Do you have a source that tells how they're fastened together, or are you basing it on 'I can't see any nuts and bolts in the picture, therefore there are none'?
You are the one who said that you could see nuts and bolts when I posted the image -- "The insulation is held together with tape, but other components? I see plenty of framework and other bracing using struts, nuts and bolts, etc."
There aren't any nuts or bolts. Please point them out for us.
Other than a few pictures of packaging for nuts and bolts and a strut with a nut and bolt (both in private collections), I can't really find any that clearly show nuts and bolts (If I ever see the module on display, I'll be sure to get close up pics)
http://freshspot.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/10/lm_truss_1_2.jpg (http://freshspot.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/10/lm_truss_1_2.jpg)
http://freshspot.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/10/lm_truss_2.jpg (http://freshspot.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/10/lm_truss_2.jpg)
Why did I say nuts and bolts then? Because I applied reasoning. If those landing legs, support struts, etc, were all held together with tape, the weight of the entire structure would be too much for the lower assemblies, real OR fake. Even if it were fake, there's still enough weight that the lower parts would probably come apart, splay outward, or sag down if merely taped together, which would mean welding, or bolts, screws etc. And if they were throwing together a fake LEM, would they bother to weld the supporting framework? Welding would also mean exact alignment of each piece when it's welded, otherwise some other part at the other end of that piece might not fit correctly. Possibly they used bolts for the initial alignment, and then welded. Since I didn't build it though, I'm not sure what method was used. I see what could be bolts here and there, but the pictures aren't close enough to say with 100% accuracy.
What do you think is holding the structure that "a couple 13yr olds could build in a weekend" together in these pictures?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-06.jpg (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-06.jpg)
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/apollo/vaisseaux/lunar_module/LM%20plant%205%20construction%2004.JPG (http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/apollo/vaisseaux/lunar_module/LM%20plant%205%20construction%2004.JPG)
I see it being used on the outer covering and wrapping. Not the actual structural integrity. Stop lying.
Curious that a space agency would secure together the outer walls of a spacecraft with tape of all things. One would think that the outer walls would be somewhat important.
They are important. They're also thin, light, flexible, and can be easily held on or together with a minimal amount of material, and easily moved to get to the storage areas inside.