News & Analysis
Neil Armstrong 'Speaks'
Neil Armstrong (left): What Really Happened on the Moon ... In an article he wrote for "Krulwich Wonders...," Krulwich pondered why the 1969 Apollo 11 astronauts didn't venture more than 90 yards from the Lunar Module. With a whole moon to explore, you'd think Armstrong and Aldrin would be hopping up the nearest mountain, or spelunking down a lunar skylight. Right? It turns out that his wondering thoughts didn't go unanswered. NASA astronaut legend Neil Armstrong decided to respond to Krulwich's blog by sending him a long email with an uncharacteristically chatty tone. In the message, Armstrong gave a wonderfully vivid explanation as to what it was like on the lunar surface and why Buzz and himself were limited by what they could do. Although much of Armstrong's text is a matter of historical record, as Krulwich says, "reading between the lines, I kinda think he wanted to do more, go further." – Discovery.com
Dominant Social Theme: The great, shy man breaks his silence.
Free-Market Analysis: It is increasingly obvious from a 21st century vantage-point that the 20th century was a sort of Dark Ages. As we emerge blinking dazedly into a new era of Internet information, we can see increasingly how much of the previous century was an elite promotion designed to create a kind of One World Order.
Chief among these promotions may have been the so-called NASA moon landings. And the chief witness for those who disbelieve that man ever walked on the moon is the person who first touched down on the surface – astronaut Neil Armstrong. Armstrong, in fact, is a walking compendium of reasons why many people believe that men never did fly to earth's main satellite; or at least not US astronauts. (Apparently, according to scripture, ancient Hindu spacemen may have gotten there and fought a fierce battle.)
In any event, almost every action of Neil Armstrong bespeaks great hesitation. From the most abysmal and awful, single press conference every organized or presented (when Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin returned from the moon) – and still available in all its weird woefulness on Youtube – to his tortured and twisted statements which often reference the moon generally without specifically placing him there, to his general avoidance of anything remotely having to do with moon-landing celebratory events, Armstrong's behavior is logically that of a man with something to hide. He seems to have a guilty conscience. He seems in constant mourning.
And yet now he speaks – not in person but via email. He is uncharacteristically chatty, we are informed. We are happy for him if this is the case. Never has a decent individual seemed to us so tortured by a great accomplishment as this man. Mind you, we have not gone so far as to disavow the possibility that man walked on the moon (nor will we ever unless concrete proof is offered one way or the other) but we are in the business of tracking the dominant social themes of the elite and the NASA script smells rather much like a promotion. (Viet Nam was a bad deal and the moon landings put the US government back in business.)
Today, with the advent of the Internet and the additional scrutiny the "moon landings" have received, one could make a case that NASA is in some kind of long-term, emergency damage control. Fairly recently, NASA announced it had "lost" the original films of the Apollo astronauts on the moon. The agency had apparently just discovered they'd been accidently written over. Fortunately, NASA has released new and improved versions of the originals, and has proudly announced that the new versions are far clearer and crisper because they have been doctored! No reticence there. We have also noted how many of the original moon rocks have gone missing and how a piece of petrified (earthbound) wood was found in the middle of one batch still extant. (NASA has no explanation, nor will one be forthcoming.)
We have delved into Youtube of all places to observe a startling series of analyses focused on specific videos that provide interesting evidences of tiny models that were used to fake NASA photos as well as glints of wires that appear and disappear regularly, holding the astronauts up. We have listened to an interview with a later moon astronaut who seems to have no knowledge of the terrible Van Allen radiation belt – so either he was ignorant of it or it was not considered a problem worth mentioning at the time. Then there is the question of the photos themselves. Rudimentary calculations reveal that given the number of photos, astronauts would have had to be churning them out at something like one every 30 seconds. How is this possible given all the other things the astronauts had to do? We could go on, but we won't. It upsets many who pass this way (and never return as a result).
But consider, please, the "larger picture" before you reject the possibility of a hoax out-of-hand. So much of the 20th century's great events turn out not to have been what they were portrayed as being. The US federal income tax may never have been ratified; central banking was implemented in the US via some level of subterfuge; the origins of World War I remain most murky; (perhaps one goal was to launch the failed global facility called the League of Nations); the Roaring 20s came about because the Federal Reserve printed too much money; the Great Depression and subsequent financial regulation was blamed on the private sector rather than the quasi-public Federal Reserve; Hitler's rise was funded in part by Western banks – just as Russian communism had been; America's entry into World War II was decided by Pearl Harbor (but President Roosevelt may have known about it in advance and encouraged the attack); both the Korean and VietNam wars were pursued deceitfully; questions still swirl some 50-years later around both Jack and Bobby Kennedy's deaths, as well as the death of Martin Luther King and numerous popular rock and roll stars (Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix, etc.)
Then there were outright intelligence operations. Operations Gladio, Paperclip and Mockingbird were CIA controlled gambits designed to help panic the Western middle classes into giving up more power and wealth to internationalist facilities; the hippie period of the 1960s may have been set off by another intelligence operation; Iraq was quite possibly manipulated into invading Kuwait by a US ambassador's "green light." Various US domestic disturbances in the 1990s are seen by some as "false flag" events designed to allow the federal government to crack down on a nascent "patriot movement"; the greater European Union is seen by many as a contrived expansion driven by subterfuge rather than popularity.
Of course the 21st century has seen its share of questionable reporting as well, beginning with 9/11 and then continuing through serial US wars, a Great Recession and subsequent, questionable corporate bailouts. But out of all of the above, if we had to choose one potential promotion that stood out for sheer chutzpa, it would have to be NASA's decade-long quest to put a man on the moon. And now sad sphinx (Neil Armstrong) talks. Or rather he doesn't talk but emails it in. A suspicious individual could argue that this is further evidence of damage control. Of course from our point of view no matter what NASA does, the questions will keep on coming, and they will grow louder. The Internet is a process not an episode. As the questions rise, NASA will have to keep battling, of course. Old elite promotions never die, nor do they even fade away.
NASA's spokespeople will continually and bravely venture forth. Its leaders, appointed or promoted, will continue to make the case that an operation that loses the most significant tapes in humankind's history was competent enough to put men on the moon within a 10-year time horizon on six separate occasions without losing a soul. They will have to argue that while spacemen had never been more than 400 miles into space, all of a sudden NASA was able to project them on a 500,000-mile round-trip without a serious glitch or the loss of even one life. They will have to argue that the Van Allen radiation belt – which is generally recognized as serious barrier to deep-space travel these days – was a fairly trivial occurrence.
Conclusion: Most seriously of all, they will have to explain why after putting men on the moon almost at will during a five year period in the middle of the 20th century, NASA's brain-trust is projecting that the agency will not be able to send men to the moon until at least the middle 2020s. Strange indeed. We will have to wait at least another decade-and-a-half before the "right stuff" is again in evidence.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Failure on 01/08/11 05:50 AM
Have you guys seen this one yet? NASA is now claiming they had devices that could remain self-powered for nearly 40s back in the late 60s early 70s. How come cell phones and laptops don't last that long 40 years later?
Click to view link
Click to view link
|
Posted by Merrill on 01/01/11 07:30 PM
I admire much of the work you publish at the DB, especially regarding topics of liberty, law and economics, but with this article you are going far into tin foil hat territory.
I know I will attract attacks upon my character, inclinations or even sanity. So be it. I have too much first-hand knowledge to deny we landed on the Moon. It would be equivalent to denying I breath air and drink water.
I wish I could remember the exact source, but the best argument against conspiracy theories was a quote, which I will have to paraphrase, from an article published in the Foundation for Economic Education's publication The Freeman.
(Paraphrase) "A true conspiracy requires a level of secrecy so great that even the conspirators spouses would find it laughable."
An roommate from a few decades ago told me of an argument on this topic he had with his mother. He responded as she watched television,
"So you believe that some people in a room some 60 miles away take moving pictures of themselves, turn those pictures into an invisible signal and send it flying through the air. You stick a piece of metal above your house and it picks up that signal brings it to a box with a tube that turns it back into a moving picture for you to watch. You have no trouble believing that but you don't believe men walked on the moon?"
She saw no conflict. To someone who had limited knowledge of such things, the near and familiar trumped anything that required a stretch of the imagination and an expansion of her knowledge. Yet she believed in flying saucers. The remote and fanciful fulfilled her world view whereas something credible that required a bit of work did not.
"Fairly recently, NASA announced it had "lost" the original films of the Apollo astronauts on the moon. The agency had apparently just discovered they'd been accidentally written over."
Not surprising at all. The U.S. Government is notoriously negligent in archiving data. Many old tapes were reused because supply was short or for budgetary reasons. Much is simply thrown away because it is no longer being used and the space is needed for new material.
An acquaintance obtained several thousand original prints of old lunar photos from early missions, like Ranger and Surveyor, because they were about to be trashed. They were stored at the Stennis Space Center near Gulfport, MS. He had researched the photos before and one of the officials offered them to him. The official told him it wasn't the culture at NASA and many research facilities to think about archiving.
"The surface of the moon, we are told, has lots of loose rocks. With the low gravity up there and the enormous blasts from the landing rockets, there would have been a huge dust/rock storm at landing. Yet the photographs show the feet of the landing gear completely clear of any debris. Perhaps the astronauts first brushed off the landing gear before taking snap shots."
A few months ago I was privileged to be a dinner guest at a table with Apollo 16 Lunar Module pilot Charles "Charlie" Duke. I already knew a good bit about the properties of lunar dust, aka lunar regolith. It is like a fine talc, not like the dust with which we are commonly acquainted. Since there is no atmosphere, it also has a static charge.
Duke explained how the dust stuck to everything, especially itself. It didn't dust up and float but tended to clump and fall quickly back to the surface. The static made it act as if it were damp. Also remember we tend to think in terms of earth's gravity. The moon is five times weaker. As the landers decelerated, they required less thrust than they would have on earth. It isn't as much as you would think, especially in a vacuum, which quickly dissipates the blast.
Also, regarding the cameras. Many years ago I met one of the opticians who built some of the cameras used in the Gemini and Apollo programs. They took extreme conditions into account.
The famous footage of a Saturn V launch taken from a camera mounted on the launch platform was taken with one of his cameras. You see the ice flaking off the rocket as it slide by, then the flames engulf the camera. He said the camera was less than 15 feet from the rocket. It was cooked but you see the film survived. Also, as long as the film is encased within the camera, it will survive harsh conditions. Emulsion film is not sensitive to radiation, so it would not affect the image.
Temperature is a concern. Duke dropped a family photo on the lunar surface and took a photo of it immediately. He said it curled fast because of the temperature. Temperatures can be easily controlled by proper insulation. BTW ' most of the landing shots were taken with cameras augmented for use with thick gloves.
I don't know Neil Armstrong personally, only through others who know him. By all reports, he is a very private person by nature. He is very friendly but shuns the spotlight. Always has.
"They supposedly left behind a reflector that one of the observatories in the western U.S. shoots a laser at every week or so to calculate distance."
Right. That is the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment reflectors were left behind on the Apollo 11, 15 & 15 missions, with different monitoring stations, including and observatory in Grasse, France, McDonald Observatory (ceased monitoring in 2009) in west Texas and Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico (still functioning).
You may claim they don't exist but I saw the one at McDonald before it shut down and a close acquaintance spent a few years at McDonald working with the persons monitoring the station.
"...I would like to see us go carefully back through the entire Moon missions and deal with all the (I think good) questions that have (and are) being raised. And end the study with an up close view of the original Moon landing sites as photographed from a Moon orbiting telescope."
Already been done. In 2009, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter took photos of most of the landing sites. Here are the photos:
Click to view link
"Has anyone seen pics taken from a powerful telescope of Tranquility Base and what artifacts that were left behind? If we landed on the moon, wouldn't all of those items still be there to see from one of those observatories?"
I've had many people ask that question at the public observatory I help establish. The fact is the limiting resolution from earth based telescopes is far too great to see anything that small.
The smallest objects we can detect from earth-based telescopes, even with the advanced image processing technology we now have, is about a mile in diameter, and that's being generous.
The earth's atmosphere distorts the light too much for anything greater. As far as orbiting telescopes? Possibly, but I seriously doubt the angular size of a lunar craft is large enough for the cameras on board. I would have to look up the specs on the cameras.
"If I thought there was a fake, it would be that the Apollo 13 Astronauts corpses aren't following Voyager out into the solar system, and the rescued astronauts weren't actors."
Hmm, well, the Apollo 13 astronauts certainly survived. I know because I met Jim Lovell, who was commander of that mission, about ten years ago.
The only other thing I can do is refer you to a site that addresses these questions better than I can:
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Here at the Bell, we have been careful not to say definitively that the moon landing was a hoax. But our cynicism keeps climbing every time we re-examine the "evidence."
NASA recently reissued moon photos, etc. completely redigitalized, after "losing" most of it. That's right, NASA lost the MOST PRECIOUS VIDEO EVIDENCE EVER CREATED. Just erased it and then merrily reissued some of it "redigitalized."
And what about the piece of petrified wood amongst the moon rocks? NASA has no response.
And what about professional photographers who have proven to their satisfaction that the photos and videos were doctored?
And what about the professional photographers who have proven to their satisfaction that some of the photos could not have been taken by the astronauts, but were taken by third-parties?
And what about the glints that you can see from wires holding up the astronauts?
And what about the one astronaut that goes from prone to perpendicular without ever moving his knees?
And what about the astronauts and astronaut gear that seems to have bases built into them - making them look like customized dolls?
And what about a single backdrop appearing in two different photos in two different places?
And what about exposes showing clearly where Kubrick layered the imaginary backdrops - you apparently can see the seams.
You can find all this on Youtube and more. If the moon landings were faked, Youtube and the Internet will have proved NASA's worst nightmare. Something that was entirely unpredicted when the original hoax was being planned ...
And it wouldn't be the first hoax of the 20th century, would it? The US has admitted that the provocation that started the Vietnam war was faked; has admitted that there was something called Mockingbird that gathered together top US media complexes to lie on behalf of CIA and FBI programs; has admitted that there was an Operation Gladio that created fictitious communist cells in foreign countries in order to enhance the cold war ...
We could go on. Much of what occurred in the 1900s was ochestrated by intel agencies and their elite masters to enhance the prestige of the state and ready the world for more intensive global governance.
NASA went from virtually a standing start to the moon in under a decade. Pretty impressive. Yet this same agency suggests that it cannot now get back to the moon for another 30 years, regularly blows up its astronauts, crashes its technology and has somehow managed to discard most of the technology that was "used" in the moon landings - including priceless videos ...
No, we are not going to suggest definitively that the moon landings were hoaxed. But given every other manipulation played on the American people during the 20th century, we are perfectly prepared to ask ... why not? Why wouldn't the Anglo-Americans elites have the arrogance to "fake it?" Much of what went on in the 20th century was fake. Why not this too?
NASA still has problems getting rockets off the ground. But for a few years in the late 1960s, everything operated perfectly. NASA, of all bureaucracies, was the shining exception. Six flawless missions. 500,000 miles per from virtually a standing start. Everything went right. The rinkydink Apollo capsules that astronauts feared to drop anything in, lest it plunge through cardboard-like floor, performed flawlessly.
And what exactly is the carelessly applied gold foil wrapped round these landing "capsules?" Is it to fend off the Van Allen radiation belt? Curious minds would like to know ...
|
Posted by Catevala on 12/16/10 10:40 PM
Dan, you write:
"* even today, ordinary skeptics correctly argue that if there was any sign that 9/11 could be a false flag, liberal outfits, Muslim leaders, peace leaders, civil and human rights groups, "rogue" governments, etc., would have raised the alarm."
Actually on this one I have to disagree. There have been many who have "raised the alarm". Many in Europe almost immediately saw this sham for what it was. Also some in Canada and even some here. And even some Muslims too, incl. President of Iran. However, they have no credibility. Because! when the perpetrators of this false-flag operation are also the group that controls the news media...well you get my point.
If we really had the kind of news organizations that used to exist in this country, free and able to write what they saw unobstructed, then you'd see this thing brought to light. In other words, this particular false-flag operation could never, never have been even conceived of until these criminals knew they had (near) complete control of the media.
(And please note I have my glasses on and am re-reading my posts before sending them :-)
|
Posted by Dan Noel on 12/16/10 03:38 PM
Thank you for this unemotional article on another alleged grand conspiracy. Assuming it would be real, its most amazing aspect would arguably be the lack of denunciation by other space powers, particularly the Soviet Union. Kindly remember that the moon landing project was intended, right from its inception, to snub the Soviet space program.
To point some telescopes at the Saturn rocket, observe its progression, and observe the return vessel would have been child's play for Soviet astronomers and space explorers. How would have they been persuaded to cover up the moon landing sham?
This leads us to the generally ignored but amazingly tight and resilient 9/11 censorship. In contrast with the moon landing--which the Daily Bell carefully reports as a possible hoax--the official 9/11 narrative has been shown to be a fraud, with the real terrorists being the top-notch engineers and the support staff who demolished the twin towers with shock, awe, and 2,000 civilians.
The ensuing official technical investigations have been demonstrated to be fraudulent. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth provides this information on the web at no charge in layman's terms.
The inevitable conclusions are earth-shattering:
* the U.S. government, through its successive investigations into 9/11, knowingly provided cover and protection to the most formidable terrorists in history;
* of the innumerable watchdogs that could and should have denounced this, very few--and only marginal ones--have done so;
* even today, ordinary skeptics correctly argue that if there was any sign that 9/11 could be a false flag, liberal outfits, Muslim leaders, peace leaders, civil and human rights groups, "rogue" governments, etc., would have raised the alarm.
9/11 teaches "us the people of the world" that "we" live in a global Platonic theater. Leaders and organizations of importance somehow conspire to filter and enhance the information "we" receive.
Which brings "us" back to the possibility of the fake moon landings: if "we" can be spoon-fed a story as incredible and as demonstrably false as the 9/11 cover, why wouldn't "we" be fed a hoax about the moon's exploration?
Love,
Reply from The Daily Bell
Which brings "us" back to the possibility of the fake moon landings: if "we" can be spoon-fed a story as incredible and as demonstrably false as the 9/11 cover, why wouldn't "we" be fed a hoax about the moon's exploration?
Wasn't this generally our point? We have not concluded that the US government deliberately destroyed the Twin Towers; we have, however, called repeatedly for new investigations into 9/11 because of all the obvious lies swirling about the attack. About a dozen times.
|
Posted by David Howard on 12/16/10 03:02 PM
Everyone needs to learn that 9/11 was the American regime nuking its own largest city, and it created the China Syndrome which then poisoned thousands of responders and millions of NY residents.
Google "9/11 Cancers"
|
Posted by Catevala on 12/16/10 11:39 AM
"But now, now I'm willing to admit maybe I wasn't so insightful not that I don't get high every day".
Hahaha! No, not a Freudian slip. I really do NOT get high every day, now! I am actually quite sober! But I am typing without my glasses on. Always dangerous! Hahaha.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Hahaha ... hahaha ... are you sure? :-)
|
Posted by Catevala on 12/16/10 11:35 AM
I should have said Lost in Space's too, and first.
|
Posted by Catevala on 12/16/10 11:34 AM
@ Lost in Space
@ Mark Humprhey
@DB
1. I think that Humphrey's comments are cogent, to the point, reasonable and probable;
2) I am inclined toward believing his scenario after watching Gene Krantz om vido discussing the Apollo 11 'near-miss' catastrophes. I may be naive and gullible, but still I trust my intuition and gut-feelings and that guy is telling the truth. There isn't a false note in any of his comments.
3) I have read 6-7 parts of the long essays on the hippies and Laurel Canyon on the Center for an Informed America website. He makes a strong case for some sort of "connection" betw. the various people in the early hippie movement. Lots of connections and associations and not coincidences. That I'll grant. But what are his conclusions? What is he saying after all is said and done? The CIA, Naval Intelligence, etc. instigated the whole thing? how? Funding? Supplying ghost music writing? Studio engineers? Brain-washing? Drugs? Paying the rent on all these crach pads and houses? He asks the question: Couldn't this be a case of kids rebelling against their military type parents? And then really does'nt answer it very convincingly.
4) I am all for believing conspiracies exist and that History is not as we thought it was. But sometimes I have the feelng that the Bell is getting a bit carried away.
5) It is one thing to hold down the lid on the JFK Assassination, but it's another thing altogether to hold down a Big Lid on a massive operation like NASA's Manned Space Program. I don't care if "they" (who would that "they" be?) threatened to kill the surviving families of any 'whistle-blower deathbed confessions. Surely some of these people in a position to flow the lid off had no such extant families? and just said 'the hell with it' I'm gonig to tell what really happened.
So, no, sorry but after watcing all the You Tube British program on the Moon Shots, I am still not convinced by the shadows in the wrong places. NASA might well have set up some studio shots of things that didn't get photographed very well in actuality. But that these guys didnd't go to the Moon at all?! Far-fetched.
Oh and by the way, I was watching the TV, sort of, that night in July 1969. Back then us hippies thought the whole Moon Program was faked b/c we didn't trust the Government at all. I watched it thru the haze of my cannabis stoned mind and thought it was all staged. But now, now I'm willing to admit maybe I wasn't so insightful not that I don't get high every day.
I don't know why Armstrong acted so weird in that press conference. Maybe he was just a weird guy. Odd though that NASA would choose as their "point man" for this whole mission someone who was camera shy. I mean look a the original Mercury astronauts. They were all extraverts. But then they were all test pilots too! Neil Armstrong was not; in fact he was a civilian. One of the few civilians.
I think that there are much more impt. things to be digging up and 9/11 and assassinations of JFK/RFK/MLK certainly top my list. And add to that Pearl Harbor. And the Lusitania. And....
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks for your considered comments. We disagree about the importance of the moon landings. If they were faked, it says a great deal about the establishment of the time and the leadership of the US, then and now.
|
Posted by KP on 12/16/10 03:55 AM
Surely it can't be hard for some school class or University group to send a modern camera past the landing spot and photograph it in enough detail to see footsteps and disturbances!
Any sort of distraction to keep people's attention away from what is happening here on Earth.
|
Posted by Mark Humphrey on 12/15/10 06:33 PM
However, you deserve thanks for raising questions about the "moon landing" and other events.
|
Posted by Mark Humphrey on 12/15/10 06:29 PM
"...the hippie period of the 1960s may have been set off by another intelligence operation;" Seriously?
Do you mean that the CIA made LSD available to Timothy Leary or the pranksters of the Electric Kool-aid Acid Test? Or do you mean that the CIA crafted and orchestrated the nihilism of the Hippe years, in which a generation of young Americans-and-Europeans sneered at facts, embraced drugs and lived for the whims of the moment? With due respect, you don't imagine that such cultural trends could be directed from the center, similar to inventing and motivating a culture to adopt a brand new language? Do you?
|
Posted by Jacob on 12/15/10 03:39 PM
@DB
Thanks for cleaning up part of my irreverent rant from yesterday. Too much Australian shiraz.
|
Posted by Catevala on 12/15/10 12:22 PM
@Fulton Plauche
What? we have an ex-NASA scientist/engineer at the Daily Bell??
1) Few replies to this, why?
2) If Plauche is with us then he can answer some of the main points yes?
3) Strange that such a person is at the Bell where conspiracy is the order of the day. But he doesn't like this conspiracy talk!
If NASA is "on the up-and-up" then why do they seem like they are prevaricating? "We lost the originals". Really!
Let's hear directly to the point from Mr. Plauch.
 |
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 12/15/10 01:03 AM
@ Nonplused
"Unless you think the "nuclear deterrent" doesn't exist either"
Hey! I think I made that argument before you did. Didn't I?
"The Van Allen radiation argument is the strongest one"
And wouldn't it be kind of cool if we solved that problem before anyone else did? I'm thinking really efficient magnets. Small ones. Very lightweight? What if we tore the guts out of a NMR machine and dipped 'em in liquid nitrogen? Shields Up Scotty! Ok, enough sci-fi for me, off to bed :)
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 12/15/10 12:33 AM
@ Erik
"Here are apparent pictures from space of the landers on the moon"
Thanks, those made me happy. I have these Google Earth pictures of my house from space and you can see things like my daughter sunbathing by the pool. I've always thought those were faked, now I know they must be. They probably took them from a plane.
I feel much better now :)
@ Nonplused
"Perhaps they did "doctor" a lot of photos"
I have to say I think all the photographic evidence was staged and I can understand why they did it too, so I don't believe that precludes a real mission to the moon, only that the pictures had to have been faked. Film doesn't work in those conditions.
|
Posted by Nonplused on 12/15/10 12:21 AM
What next? Voyager 1&2, Hubble, and the mars rovers were all fakes too?
More likely that they didn't go more than 90 meters from the lander because of safety concerns or equipment limitations. How on earth would they have dealt with a lost astronaut out of radio contact and short of air?
And getting something that size to the moon was certainly within the rocket lift capacity at the time. I don't think anyone would argue they launched big rockets at that time. Thousand of people watched the launch with there own eyes. Relatively speaking, the moon is not a hard thing to hit. It "helps you" with gravity. It will capture objects properly aimed at it into orbit.
I do not doubt that the whole moon program was a promotion to develop heavy space lift capacity for the military under the guise of a civilian program, after all there really wasn't much point sending people when rovers would have done, but you'd be hard pressed to explain why you needed such a big rocket to send a rover.
And I won't say that none of it was faked. Perhaps they did "doctor" a lot of photos, even create whole scenes on a sound stage who knows. But something big was sent to the moon and we can see the landing sights with appropriately sized telescopes to this day.
So the moon landings were a promotion to develop military hardware under a civilian guide. So they may have faked some of it to enhance the appearance of success for the stated civilian goals. They technology was still developed and deployed.
The Van Allen radiation argument is the strongest one, but there is radiation in space no matter where you are, even in low earth orbit. My understanding is that the suits and the vessel itself is designed to reduce the exposure to somewhat safe levels for the intended length of stay. And it wouldn't be the first time the "elites" have risked exposing people to radiation to accomplish their goals.
Bottom line: Some big heavy lift space technology was developed in the 60's for the moon project, and it's still in use today. That sort of lift could get the mass that was lifted to the moon using today's technology. So the only question is whether 60's technology could do it, and how many of their stated civilian goals they actually accomplished and whether some were faked.
I used to have a 68 Cougar. Although the distributor and the carburetor were more hassle than their modern day equivalents, the car performed admirably as compared to a modern car most of the time, even on a mpg basis. And with much more artistic flair, I might add.
There is no doubt it could be done again today, if we had the money and the will. The only 2 questions are: why did they do it, and did they have the technology.
The answers are: To develop military technology, and although it seems a stretch that they had the technology, they weren't far off.
If I thought there was a fake, it would be that the Apollo 13 Astronauts corpses aren't following Voyager out into the solar system, and the rescued astronauts weren't actors.
It's one thing to believe the elites are hatching schemes, but quite another to think they do it all in a Hollywood basement. Sometimes they actually want to develop technology that will allow them to smite their enemies, and they have succeeded.
Unless you think the "nuclear deterrent" doesn't exist either and maybe all those reactors are just props. Maybe the nuclear contamination around Chernobyl is all faked too, just to propagate a fake belief in e=mc^2, and the Japanese were carpet bombed with non-nuclear technology, because there is no e=mc^2.
I think not. Some of this stuff works, hence airport backscatter x-ray. It's about how they fund it.
|
Posted by Erik on 12/14/10 11:40 PM
Here are apparent pictures from space of the landers on the moon. These could be digitally manufactured, but here they are.
Click to view link
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 12/14/10 11:22 PM
@ Dogwood
"Folks, when you hear this keep in mind that the backbone of the internet was privatized in 1997. When was the first time you did anything productive on the internet?"
1991. I had left a R&D job (under duress) to take a technical lead role on a product in maintenance. When I left the lab I claimed ownership of 15 Apollo workstations and moved them to my new digs, where I set them up in an intranet, connected them to the Internet by subverting my company's DNS server and off we went.
CERN didn't invent the Internet, they invented Mosaic and HTML, which created the World Wide Web. THey're a bit different. The Web occupies the Application Layer, it's part of the stack but not the whole thing. Saying CERN invented the net is like saying Mike Muuss (may he rest in peace) invented it; Mosaic was a big part but then so was ping :)
|
Posted by Mystified At Clavius Base on 12/14/10 10:07 PM
@TCF
"Hasselblad is Swedish :) "
Ha! I should have known that, my mother is Swedish. In fact, a moose once bit my sister...
|
Posted by Jacob on 12/14/10 09:06 PM
Hey, this is so happening.
Bullsh--t over JFK, over MLK, over RFK, in the same decade that 100% faultless moon missions took place, what, allegedly? Gulf of Tonkin? Yeah, I so believe that ! So when is enough enough, I mean really enough?
If America is anything outstandingly terrific, it's that we are so on the cutting edge of, what, maybe everything, including discovering that our own government is filled with creatures trying their damndest to be what, human? And to think we let them run this circus! I wouldn't let them walk my dog without a doctor's note.
The funny thing is these morons, these posturing "elected"/ "appointed" "rulers" think they are so so very hip. Hip replacement anyone? We don't need them anymore; they're not even yesterday's news, they're yesterday's fish, and they stink.
New paradigm anyone? I'm game.
|
|
