moon hoax information index.

Quote from: frenat on February 09, 2016, 11:02:42 AM

Quote from: Yendor on February 09, 2016, 09:15:11 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 08, 2016, 08:36:41 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 08, 2016, 07:03:38 PM

Here's an interesting question: why are the landing legs wrapped in gold xmas wrapping paper anyway?

What purpose does this wrapping paper serve?

Already asked and answered:

Quote from: markjo on February 08, 2016, 01:22:58 PM

Quote from: Yendor on February 08, 2016, 12:59:25 PM

And what is up with all this gold color foil? It looks like they use it to cover stuff up so we can't see what's under it.

The gold mylar is to reflect the heat of the sun to keep the temperature stable.

Great answer markjo, I can see that. We all know shinny light color things reflect heat from the sun to keep the temperature stable and dark color things absorb heat and the temperature won't be stable. But wait...why would they care about keeping the struts stable and not the inner workings of the LM. That kinda don't make sense to. I'm not a professor like you, so It probably makes perfect sense to you. Even if the black tar paper looking stuff is special, I'd at least cover it with gold foil to make it more photogenic. After all, they use mylar tape to patch the rips and tears in it and that looks just terrible.

The tape is not to patch rips and tears.  It is used to attach to avoid rips and tears.  If you attach something with a rivet then you concentrate the attachment at a point.  Attach it with tape and the force spreads out.

OMG dude, you just cannot see that NASA is lying to you. The thing in that picture is hideous, there is no chance that it landed on the moon with people inside of it. It is truly laughable that people still believe that fairytale.

So it has to look pretty to be able to land on the Moon?  Even if what you're looking at is just the outer insulative layer?
Here's what it looked like without that outer layer.






But hey, you seem to consider yourself an expert.  What should it have looked like and how would the looks improve its performance.

I'm renovating a house at the moment & all the old crap we throw in the skip looks better than this:

Wtf is wrong with people who still believe this trash-can went to teh munn 50 years ago?

Duck tape & xmas present wrapper too!

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?

What is wrong with Papa Legba?  Excellent question,   why is he so stupid?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

He somehow equates renovating some dump he lives in,  with advanced aerospace engineering.   And fails to see the differences.

Newsflash1:  House renovation, is not the same as a moon mission.   ( Although I have a friend who might test that hypothesis to it's limit ).

As for Hoppy thinking it has to look pretty,  but has no clue about what functionality is required.  There's no cure for that degree of stupid.

Newsflash2: Spacecraft are functional machines, they don't have to look pretty,  just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's fake,  there are others who do understand.

Keep em coming Yendor,  the more the merrier.

advanced aerospace engineering.

BEHOLD THE ADVANCED AEROSPACE ENGINEERING! BOW DOWN & WEEP BEFORE IT!!! UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES THROW IT IN THE TRASH BY MISTAKE!!! IT IS A MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR SPACE-SHIP!!! IT IS!!! BELIEVE ME!!! BELIIIEEEEEEEVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!111! OBEY!!!!111!111 OBEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!1!11111!11111



LMFAO!!!

BEHOLD THE ADVANCED AEROSPACE ENGINEERING! BOW DOWN & WEEP BEFORE IT!!! UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES THROW IT IN THE TRASH BY MISTAKE!!! IT IS A MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR SPACE-SHIP!!! IT IS!!! BELIEVE ME!!! BELIIIEEEEEEEVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!111! OBEY!!!!111!111 OBEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!1!11111!11111

Are you feeling ok.   Should I send out an emergency call for Kevin McCloud?

Quote from: Rayzor on February 09, 2016, 09:34:14 PM

advanced aerospace engineering.

BEHOLD THE ADVANCED AEROSPACE ENGINEERING! BOW DOWN & WEEP BEFORE IT!!! UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES THROW IT IN THE TRASH BY MISTAKE!!! IT IS A MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR SPACE-SHIP!!! IT IS!!! BELIEVE ME!!! BELIIIEEEEEEEVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!111! OBEY!!!!111!111 OBEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!1!11111!11111



LMFAO!!!

Its almost as if they where not even trying to hoax people.

If they wanted to create a hoax they might have given people what they expected to see rather than what you would see as a result of engineering.

The irony in all this is that by pointing things out that you dont think work in your mind, you confirm the validity of the entire program. There is an actual reason behind every single design decision, and you would be able to figure it out if you know how to google Its just that good design is not what you would expect to see.
If it was a Hollywood style hoax, they would have given you exactly what you would have expected. Now all the conspirators say its false because it does not look like something out of Hollywood.

If you haven't already seen it the dramatised documentary 'From The Earth To The Moon' had a great episode called 'Spider' which told the story of the Grumman team designing the LM.

If you haven't already seen it the dramatised documentary 'From The Earth To The Moon' had a great episode called 'Spider' which told the story of the Grumman team designing the LM.

There is also the moon machines documentary on the lunar module,  maybe Popeye Lebga can pick up some decorating tips.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

Quote from: legion on February 09, 2016, 12:04:15 PM

Quote from: Yendor on February 09, 2016, 12:00:53 PM

Quote from: rlw777 on February 09, 2016, 11:47:19 AM

Quote from: Yendor on February 09, 2016, 08:22:54 AM

In Apollo 11:
Between the photos AS11-40-5862 and AS11-40-5863, the photographer moves to the right and back:



I would expect the US plate (circled in red) on the extreme right to be more visible on the second photo...but, it's the converse, it's even less visible on the second photo. I can't wait for your excuses.

You're joking right? Please tell me you're joking. You know cameras can rotate 360 degrees. You can take a picture in like any direction

I assure you I'm not joking. It is obvious to the most casual observer that the photographer moved to the right because you can see a different angle view of the LM. At that angle you should definitely see more of the US sign. It is just common sense.

Where are the two original photos, Yendor?

They are right above. They have a scroll bar so you have to scroll to the right to see both.

The photographer stepped to the right, but also turned a little left. Looking at the U, you can see that it is broader in the second picture, because the photographer turned a little left, and therefore looked more directly at the U than from the side, as in the first picture. You can see it with the ladder too, because the photographer stepped right and turned left the ladder was looked at from the side rather than from the front.

The request is still open for any believers to share their most compelling evidence men golfed on the moon.

Happy for anyone to chip in with information whilst waiting, no such thing as a useless post.

Regarding the LM,
legs that were designed to buckle on landing, and buckled perfectly, yet still maintained integrity and shape.
The buckling leg design was to save weight as was the multi layered insulation, although this insulation is not uniform or constant.
The special space duck tape was also a weight saving idea, although again temperature and reflectivity was not a factor.

Google of course is full of fanboy wonder and belief suspension (no pun intended).

I'm sure it's all very simple and maybe it will lead to some compelling evidence.

I see the design coming into question and it looks like it would not have worked.

How about the people in the it never happened camp provide us with a design that would work for landing on the moon.

I just had this thought.  If the moon for a flat Earth is under the firmament it would be much easier to reach.  So if you believe that space flight in general can not happen it seems the moon would still be in reach.

The request is still open for any believers to share their most compelling evidence men golfed on the moon.

Happy for anyone to chip in with information whilst waiting, no such thing as a useless post.

Regarding the LM,
legs that were designed to buckle on landing, and buckled perfectly, yet still maintained integrity and shape.
The buckling leg design was to save weight as was the multi layered insulation, although this insulation is not uniform or constant.
The special space duck tape was also a weight saving idea, although again temperature and reflectivity was not a factor.

Google of course is full of fanboy wonder and belief suspension (no pun intended).

I'm sure it's all very simple and maybe it will lead to some compelling evidence.

The compelling evidence, is that it did work,  every time.   What is duck tape?   Is it something you taffies use to catch ducks?   

I see the design coming into question and it looks like it would not have worked.

How about the people in the it never happened camp provide us with a design that would work for landing on the moon.

I just had this thought.  If the moon for a flat Earth is under the firmament it would be much easier to reach.  So if you believe that space flight in general can not happen it seems the moon would still be in reach.

That might be a bridge too far,  the snow globe people like sceptimatic don't think the moon is real,  or if it is, it's glued to the inside of the dome,   the  voodoo faction don't think rockets work in a vacuum,  and feuk, is a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nutter,   legion is off in VR somewhere chewing multi-coloured pills.   

So asking this mob to design a space vehicle is not a good idea,   Papa could probably fix you up with an MDF makeover, and some pretty floral wallpaper.   Do not however under any circumstances get sceptimatic to do anything associated with plumbing...   oh the horror,  the horror...

Regarding the LM,
legs that were designed to buckle on landing, and buckled perfectly, yet still maintained integrity and shape.
The buckling leg design was to save weight as was the multi layered insulation, although this insulation is not uniform or constant.

The legs weren't designed to buckle only the honeycomb shock absorber within the piston assembly was. The LM only had to land once so a lightweight one use shock absorber is a better design than one that is heavier and multi-use.

OMG dude, you just cannot see that NASA is lying to you. The thing in that picture is hideous, there is no chance that it landed on the moon with people inside of it. It is truly laughable that people still believe that fairytale.

What was the old saying about books and their covers?

The compelling evidence, is that it did work,  every time.   What is duck tape?   Is it something you taffies use to catch ducks?   

> snipped meltdown <

Eeer...I'm not Welsh (if indeed that is what you were implying, it's hard to make sense of the foaming meltdowns )

and I do apologise, I meant to say magical space duck tape.
any thoughts ?

As for a real LM design, no problem.
Just kindly deposit Ł5 Billion into a Paypal account and I'll make a start.

Thanks.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 10, 2016, 05:14:53 AM

The compelling evidence, is that it did work,  every time.   What is duck tape?   Is it something you taffies use to catch ducks?   

> snipped meltdown <

Eeer...I'm not Welsh (if indeed that is what you were implying, it's hard to make sense of the foaming meltdowns )

and I do apologise, I meant to say magical space duck tape.
any thoughts ?

As for a real LM design, no problem.
Just kindly deposit Ł5 Billion into a Paypal account and I'll make a start.

Thanks.

You do not have to build it. Just design it.  You are claiming the design would not work, which means you know how it should have been designed.

 

Quote from: Rayzor on February 10, 2016, 05:14:53 AM

The compelling evidence, is that it did work,  every time.   What is duck tape?   Is it something you taffies use to catch ducks?   

> snipped meltdown <

Eeer...I'm not Welsh (if indeed that is what you were implying, it's hard to make sense of the foaming meltdowns )

and I do apologise, I meant to say magical space duck tape.
any thoughts ?

As for a real LM design, no problem.
Just kindly deposit Ł5 Billion into a Paypal account and I'll make a start.

Thanks.

Well seeing as you're denying your welsh heritage,   I  can only take a wild guess, and suspect that you are thinking of DUCT tape,  DUCKS are feathered creatures that normally have no use for tape of any kind. 

Quote from: feuk on February 10, 2016, 05:31:49 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 10, 2016, 05:14:53 AM

The compelling evidence, is that it did work,  every time.   What is duck tape?   Is it something you taffies use to catch ducks?   

> snipped meltdown <

Eeer...I'm not Welsh (if indeed that is what you were implying, it's hard to make sense of the foaming meltdowns )

and I do apologise, I meant to say magical space duck tape.
any thoughts ?

As for a real LM design, no problem.
Just kindly deposit Ł5 Billion into a Paypal account and I'll make a start.

Thanks.

Well seeing as you're denying your welsh heritage,   I  can only take a wild guess, and suspect that you are thinking of DUCT tape,  DUCKS are feathered creatures that normally have no use for tape of any kind.

I'll educate you.

Dear Duct Tape Users:

Is it Duct or Duck? We don’t want you to be confused, so we will explain. The first name for Duct Tape was DUCK. During World War II the U.S. Military needed a waterproof tape to keep the moisture out of ammunition cases. So, they enlisted the Johnson and Johnson Permacel Division to manufacture the tape. Because it was waterproof, everyone referred to it as “duck” tape (like water off a duck’s back). Military personnel discovered that the tape was good for lots more than keeping out water. They used it for Jeep repair, fixing stuff on their guns, strapping equipment to their clothing... the list is endless.

After the War, the housing industry was booming and someone discovered that the tape was great for joining the heating and air conditioning duct work. So, the color was changed from army green to the silvery color we are familiar with today and people started to refer to it as “duct tape*.” Therefore, either name is appropriate.

.

After the War, the housing industry was booming and someone discovered that the tape was great for joining the heating and air conditioning duct work. So, the color was changed from army green to the silvery color we are familiar with today and people started to refer to it as “duct tape*.” Therefore, either name is appropriate.

Agreed,  I was expecting to get the comeback that DUCK is a brand,  but  I couldn't help  stirring a little.   DUCT is preferred. 

Well seeing as you're denying your welsh heritage,   I  can only take a wild guess, and suspect that you are thinking of DUCT tape,  DUCKS are feathered creatures that normally have no use for tape of any kind.

your rather bizarre insistence I'm Welsh is mind boggling,
as is your even more bizarre waddling quacking duck obsession.

Any chance you can stay on topic,
or is a long and winding detour your aim ?

(I see someone has posted up some info on duck tape . It's old school and the youngsters probably have never heard of it, but it's accurate. Sorry "homie"  )

You do not have to build it. Just design it.  You are claiming the design would not work, which means you know how it should have been designed.

 

Don't designs need to be rigorously tested ?

Shower curtains, scotch tape and mop handles are not free you know 

But seriously is it an artists impression your after ?
Or schematics on a tested design ?

You seem a like a decent chap woody,
I will knock a billion off the price.

Quote from: Woody on February 10, 2016, 05:36:07 AM

You do not have to build it. Just design it.  You are claiming the design would not work, which means you know how it should have been designed.

 

Don't designs need to be rigorously tested ?

Shower curtains, scotch tape and mop handles are not free you know 

But seriously is it an artists impression your after ?
Or schematics on a tested design ?

You seem a like a decent chap woody,
I will knock a billion off the price.

Just need to do what NASA claimed to do before actually building anything.  Have it work on paper, with the math adding up, predicted stress on parts, weight/mass(a really big concern with space flight), thrust ,delta-v, etc.

 I am just asking for the design of the lander so think you could cut the price by another billion.  3 billion seems a more reasonable price just for the design.

Just need to do what NASA claimed to do before actually building anything.  Have it work on paper, with the math adding up, predicted stress on parts, weight/mass(a really big concern with space flight), thrust ,delta-v, etc.

 I am just asking for the design of the lander so think you could cut the price by another billion.  3 billion seems a more reasonable price just for the design.

Sorry the price has no wiggle room left after my initial discount.

Scale cardboard models and lunar surface mock ups (exactly as NASA did it) are just the tip of the financial iceberg,
chuck in the space tape tested by people all wearing white coats and I hope you appreciate the costs involved.

I could possibly knock off a score if I can get a job lot of space tape.

The compelling evidence, is that it did work,  every time.

LOL!!!

Is that all you got left?

'It just did'...

Poor broken disinfo-thing!

What was the old saying about books and their covers?

In fact, the saying amongst military pilots regarding planes is: 'If it looks right it'll fly right'.

So they DO 'judge books by their covers'; very much so.

You'd know this if you weren't a ridiculous JREF-ugee disinfo-fraud.

Does the LEM 'look right' to you, markjo?

Please say yes; in fact please please use the stock shill-phrase 'it looks just fine to me'...

We all need a good belly-laugh!

I don't believe anyone doesn't believe they actually built a landing module that was to government specs. Of course they did. I just don't believe the pictures of it on the moon is the real one. I believe they also built cardboard and plywood mockups and called them simulators and they are what all the moon pictures show.  That is why all the gold foil and tarpaper is used for, to cover things up. I'd like to show two more pictures from the Apollo 15 mission on the moon.

AS15-82-11082
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-82-11082.html 


AS15-82-11057
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-82-11057.html 


I'd like to bring your attention to the hills in the background. Does anyone believe like me they are the same hills? If so, why is the LM in one and not in the other? I can't believe all the hills on the moon look the same.

I know what you will say, the LM is close and out of sight in AS15-82-11057. That is why it isn't seen. But, if you look at the hills they look the same size and the details look the same to me. I believe if you put one pic on top of the other, they would be the same size. I can't really do it because I don't have a good program that does that. All I have is 'Paint'.

I don't believe anyone doesn't believe they actually built a landing module that was to government specs. Of course they did. I just don't believe the pictures of it on the moon is the real one. I believe they also built cardboard and plywood mockups and called them simulators and they are what all the moon pictures show.  That is why all the gold foil and tarpaper is used for, to cover things up. I'd like to show two more pictures from the Apollo 15 mission on the moon.

AS15-82-11082
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-82-11082.html 


AS15-82-11057
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-82-11057.html 


I'd like to bring your attention to the hills in the background. Does anyone believe like me they are the same hills? If so, why is the LM in one and not in the other? I can't believe all the hills on the moon look the same. 

I know what you will say, the LM is close and out of sight in AS15-82-11057. That is why it isn't seen. But, if you look at the hills they look the same size and the details look the same to me. I believe if you put one pic on top of the other, they would be the same size. I can't really do it because I don't have a good program that does that. All I have is 'Paint'.

of course they are the same hills.  They are distant hills, many kilometers away.  They won't change much when the foreground changes like any distant features but they DO change.

I'd like to bring your attention to the hills in the background. Does anyone believe like me they are the same hills? If so, why is the LM in one and not in the other? I can't believe all the hills on the moon look the same.

I know what you will say, the LM is close and out of sight in AS15-82-11057. That is why it isn't seen. But, if you look at the hills they look the same size and the details look the same to me. I believe if you put one pic on top of the other, they would be the same size. I can't really do it because I don't have a good program that does that. All I have is 'Paint'.

They look the same size because they are far away. They appear to be large because they are not hills, they are mountains (source is your links). Also, in the second picture the camera is either rotated to the left (looking at the mountains) or it has been moved a decent distance to the left. Both pictures were taken looking southeast, so the crater in the first photo is probably located west/southwest of the landing site, which is why the LM doesn't appear in the first photo.

I found this picture on the net. It is an actual overlay of the same pictures I showed above. The mountains line up perfectly with each other. That means that the distant mountains are at the same distance in each photo. Except the LM is in one and not the other. It is obvious they are using the same backgrounds in more than one picture. I bet I could find this same background mountian in other photos.

I found this picture on the net. It is an actual overlay of the same pictures I showed above. The mountains line up perfectly with each other. That means that the distant mountains are at the same distance in each photo. Except the LM is in one and not the other. It is obvious they are using the same backgrounds in more than one picture. I bet I could find this same background mountian in other photos.

they overlayed them but unless they use a gif to go back and forth they can't say they match exactly.  I can see a few spots where they don't.  The slope of the mountain on the left for example is not the same.  The slope of the left side of the rise in the middle also does not match.

Quote from: markjo on February 10, 2016, 05:25:05 AM

What was the old saying about books and their covers?

In fact, the saying amongst military pilots regarding planes is: 'If it looks right it'll fly right'.

They also say "Helicopters can't really fly - they're just so ugly that the earth immediately repels them."

Does the LEM 'look right' to you, markjo?

Please say yes; in fact please please use the stock shill-phrase 'it looks just fine to me'...

The LEM wasn't designed to operate in an atmosphere or a one g environment, so any preconceptions regarding what "looks right" for an aircraft are completely irrelevant.

I found this picture on the net. It is an actual overlay of the same pictures I showed above. The mountains line up perfectly with each other. That means that the distant mountains are at the same distance in each photo. Except the LM is in one and not the other. It is obvious they are using the same backgrounds in more than one picture. I bet I could find this same background mountian in other photos.

What about the area in between the two circles that don't match exactly?

Have you considered the possibility that the mountains are far enough away that moving around a few hundred feet or so wouldn't dramatically affect their appearance?