Were the moonlandings fake?
The moonlandings were fake.
Side Score: 22
|
 |
The moonlandings were not fake
Side Score: 16
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Hi, everyone. You've perhaps read my proof that the heat of a moon visit was far hotter than Apollo claimed and even low earth orbit was too hot for a craft like Apollo, lacking both insulation and shade. But this was not my first proof that Apollo was faked. For that I have film to thank. I mean photographic film for the millennial, or anyone who's forgotten how things used to be done. So the celluloid film from Apollo 11 was beautifully rendered into studio perfect images. But how did that film survive the outward and return journeys? We are told that the radiation on the astronauts dosimeters registered a slight exposure, equivalent to a few dental xrays. Bit how does photographic film survive that unscathed? Nobody has ever been able to answer this question either. The fact is that the dosimeters were also film and the damage they sustained should have proved to everyone that the film in the can was never on-board. There was no lead shielding. It's possible some kind of water shielding might have helped, but this was never done. The film was in ordinary aluminium canisters. This debate has been tabled under the heading of science, and in that spirit I would like to offer one more proof that Apollo is fake. Namely, LOR or lunar orbit rendevous. If you know what this means then you'll remember wondering at this audacious plan. In fact, the idea is so outlandish that most people just shut down all critical faculty when they consider it. So for everyone who doesn't know: LOR was a way to visit the moon without using a one piece system. The one piece project would require a rocket which could perform a soft touchdown on the moon and come home again. A rocket that could touch down on the moon and come home would have to be big, but if it had to first launch itself from earth then it would need to be too big. Such a rocket would have feasibility problems on many fronts, and there are limiting factors which limit a single rockets size to a certain maximum. Such a rocket was only ever a thought experiment. Von Braun conducted that thought experiment in his writings. He called the rocket Nova, which in Spanish means, 'it doesn't go'. A solution was to assemble the rocket bit by bit in earth orbit, over a period of time. Ideally two complete and independent vessels would be constructed to allow for contingencies. That plan was called Earth Orbit Rendezvous. It was the correct plan, obviously. A Russian writer devised the LOR idea in the 1920s. His design was plagiarized by a CIA guy. Atleast the guy worked in Langley. He may not have been CIA, I can't say that with any certainty, but the idea certainly wasn't new. Anyway, the CIA got behind it. They pushed LOR. It was insane. The idea that you could do a soft touchdown on a little craft which was then big enough to include an ascent stage, which was itself powerful enough to intercept an orbitor travelling at 4,000 mph. Von Braun had already rejected the idea in his teens when he first became aware of it. In 1962 the night before the official launch of the moonlandings using LOR, Von Braun inexplicably had a change of heart. No reason has ever been offered for it. It seems obvious he was in a vulnerable situation. He wasn't a guy who cared about telling the public the truth. He was a guy who bombed the public, a guy who conspired to do mass murder, not like a soldier, not like anyone had ever done before, he was a guy who found new ways to do murder and mass murder. He was a monster really, there is little doubt that he lead slaves to there deaths building his V2. More people died like that than were killed with his doodlebug, his silent supersonic V2s. He would do anything to continue his research. He could have been sent to Nuremberg for war crimes. He signed up instead for LOR even though he knew it was a crock. Never tested, the three part craft set off for the moon. The first stage launched into a lunar injection orbit. The the third stage broke away from the orbitor or Command Service Module, or Orbited, or Snoopy. So many names for the same thing. NASA always confusing like that. So after this Lunar Excursion Module lands softly on the moon, which must have taken some juice, since it was travelling at 4,000 mph, it then has its own built in launcher to intercept the orbitor, travelling a 4,000 mph still. All this was done right first time without any dress rehearsals for any of it, excluding some stuff in earth orbit. So from a standing start and a lot of disasters , the US are declared the winner of the space race. No, they never went and the USSR knew it. They were collaborating before Skylab in the 70s. They stitched up the world between them and had us fighting a phony cold war. LOR is a ridiculous shaggy dog story that people wanted to believe. We don't want to believe bullshit religions or bullshit history any longer. We want the truth and we want decent people running the show, not psychos. Side: The moonlandings were fake.
0
points
There are good reasons to blame NASA for perpetuating the Apollo hoax, afterall, when the hoax finally collapses NASA must surely fold and atleast change its name. However, the first villain of the piece must be me and you for not bringing this card house down long ago. The arguments are there to be made. So let's stick to this one point and see how long it takes to get one supporter of NASA to answer this simple question; How did Apollo cope with the immense heat of a moon visit? No shade, no insulation, just a gentle spit turn to cool them. Like a turkey roasting in a vacuum oven. How could they possibly have claimed to be cold? Side: The moonlandings were fake.
1
point
Let's say the moon landings were faked. The motivation, patriotism, and initiative spurred in those who believe them to be true isn't fake. Also, I don't think exposing the landings as fake would reverse all, if any, of those consequences. My question to you is, do you see substantial benefit from disproving the moon landings some claim to be faked? My position is that speculation is fine in moderation, but devoting extraordinary amounts of effort and time on subjects that would yield a rather insignificant positive effect on society is, in my opinion, completely futile. Side: The moonlandings were fake.
1
point
Hypothetical, "patriotism"? Who's country are we talking about. You don't mean a Vietnam patriot m, which the moonlandings were suppose to distract us from, do you? Do you mean a patriot of the US? Does that mean a liar and a cheat who follows whatever his masters voice commands? What kind of country have you? The whole country idea isn't really anything but another his. We are all just people. This is Createdebate, it's not Letsmakeasmokescreen, this is where the truth comes out. Sometimes it's messy and dirty and often painful, but it's compelling because we must have the truth above all else. This is Createdebate, abandon all hope when you log in. Also manned missions are using up all the budget for exploration and real science. We have been lied to about the Space Science Laboratory and that is a matter of oublic record, who is to say what they are up to now? Let's have decent people leading the country. The military industrial complex elite have had a good run, they tried to destroy the planet with Operation Dominic, they nuked the moon, it is they who decide to go to war with the third world and the weak. Let's atleast have the truth and let the devil be shamed. Side: The moonlandings were not fake
1
point
Are we to collude in lies? If I remain silent when I a fraud is being touted as fact, where are all the contingencies? How can I come to a view of things that I can trust if I can't have the truth? Is this not a descent into madness. Can I quote the good book: Timothy boom 2 chapter 3 He who denies the truth can not be admitted in the faith. In other words it's no good just saying Jesus will sort everything out. Are we to let the lie go? Where is your integrity? Isn't this disposable? If you can't face the struggle yourself, how can you advise others to fall back and keep our heads down. Isn't this deplorable, cowardly and immoral? Isn't it just wrong to be silent while those around you are duped? What else have these tricksters been doing? How will we ever get them back in their box if nobody challenges their lies? Side: The moonlandings were fake.
1
point
Well, I've absolutely won this argument hands down. It's no surprise to me because I've debated this for years with lots of folk. The arguments I've presented have not been challenged in any way. Some weak evidence has been offered to do with third party verification of radio signals, but that doesn't make it possible that Apollo could've taken place. I've proved beyond a doubt that Apollo couldn't possibly have reached the moon, or even maintained earth orbit. It's time to move on, and get this message out there. My problem here is that the establishment won't listen. The BBC have seen fit to ignore all my correspondence, as has parliament. I've tried to communicate with various science leaders in the U.K., but the issue is clearly toxic. The lie is so much more palatable. But not forever. If you have any suggestions or want a speaker for the conspiracy theory, just ask. Side: The moonlandings were fake.
1
point
I've proved beyond a doubt that Apollo couldn't possibly have reached the moon, or even maintained earth orbit. He says confidently, as he uses a network powered by objects in Earth orbit. Stop taking whatever substance you are taking and look at the facts. You have no evidence that the Moon landings were faked. If you do then I would very much like to see it and so would everybody else. In fact, what you rely upon is picking imaginary holes in the evidence that the Moon landings happened, and then using this to insist they never happened. There have been SIX manned missions to the Moon. SIX. Are you saying they were all faked? Give me a break. Side: The moonlandings were not fake
0
points
Am I saying all 6 were faked? Somebody hasn't been engaging. You are able to type so ita safe to assume you can read, and yet you ask questions like you haven't read anything about this debate. I've clearly demonstrated that the moonlandings of Apollo were impossible. So it's not a question of picking out one or another for special consideration. The Apollo craft were not fit for low earth orbit, let alone a moon excursion. I really don't see how you can accuse me of picking holes in things, I've demonstrably driven a horse and cart through the entire premise of going to the moon with Apollo. The craft used, according to wiki and nasa had no shade. The insulation was virtually non-existent. The protective thermal roll is palpable nonsense and you can falsify it any time with an aluminium pot in the sun. I've also shown that the teaching of heat transfer was corrupted to support the moonlandings. Radiation is basic heat transfer, it's not a possible option, but the only way heat can transfer is by radiative heat transfer. Conduction and convection are not substitutes for that mechanism, but carrier processes for radiative heat transfer. Where are holes being picked? I've shown that the craft made of aluminium will conduct the sun's absorbed heat. I've shown that by slowly turning, Apollo had no means of cooling. No heat sinks, nothing. Heat would build up in the craft even on the darkside of earth because the heat is in a vacuum and can't convect away. The heat from the sun is not conducted straight on to the craft unless it landed on the moon, that is true. Heat is not convect to the craft for the same reason. But the radiative heat alone from the sun's is devastating here on earth. In cislunar space, much more so. I invite you to pick holes in my argument So far you haven't engages. Apollo was a hoax and now most people know it. Side: The moonlandings were fake.
|
The issue is that science was corrupted to fit the Apollo narrative. Prove it. Much damage has been done to human progress, By people like you denying science. but it is time to wipe the slate, By exterminating you all and take down the myth of the moonlandings being fake. by clear thinking and pertinent observations that we can all appreciate. All of us except people like you who believe the earth is flat and NASA is run by interdimensional walruses. Side: The moonlandings were not fake
0
points
This motion has been put in the 'science' slot, and therefore , let's keep to the science. My point is basically that the science was corrupted to fit the narrative of manned space missions to the moon. The Apollo craft were not equipped with any noticeable insulation or shade. The journey through earth orbit is a hot one, we know that. The crew claimed they were cold. Something doesn't stack up here. How does your high school teacher explain it? Teacher says that space is cold. Teacher is wrong. Teacher says that conduction and convection don't work in space, but that's silly. Space isn't any colder than the sum of incoming heat minus the outgoing heat. Teacher says that space doesn't have molecules and heat is the kenetic energy of molecules. But the ISS has molecules and so does the Apollo crew, and if they flew to the moon the sun would heat up their molecules a lot. Nasa want to deliver a craft to the sun this year. That journey would actually be much cooler than the Apollo craft going to the moon. That's because the nose of the solar probe would be the only part of the craft bathed in sunlight. For Apollo, by contrast, almost the entire craft was exposed to the full, unmitigated glare of the solar furnace. If you are still wondering about heat transfer in a vacuum, utube vacuum oven. You can easily see people evacuating the oven of all the gaseous molecules and then heat objects to any temperature, even hotter than the sun's surface. The surface of the sun is not the hottest part though. The corona is a few million of degrees in Kelvin or centigrade. It is a few million miles across. So the sun is only about 30 corona diameters away from earth. We can work out apriori how hot it should be during a moon visit. But we don't need to go to that trouble. Recently Leonov, the cosmonaut, did na interview on the BBC. He said while doing his spacewalk he was so hot he thought he would die. Nobody has really attempted to explain this in any satisfactory way other than to say the whole programme was a hoax. Can anyone explain why the Apollo crew were cold, without shade, without insulation. The slow rotation of the craft was suppose to cool it down. But is that feasible? If I slowly turn an aluminium pot in the hot sun, the heat coducts evenly throughout the body of the pot. Soon, only the handle can be held for more than a few seconds. If that is different in space then, how? If I did the same thing under vacuum, would the pot stay cool? No- we have been hoaxed. Don't you agree? Side: The moonlandings were fake.
0
points
I need to dispute the flat earth comment. Just because I dispute the veracity of the moonlandings in no way infers that I am a flat earther. Do flat earthers really exist? I put forward the proposal that flat earth isn't a serious notion and was only ever adhered to and promogated to poison the well of public discourse. As such flat earth is opposite to the spirit of createdebate and should be shunned by anyone who supports createdebate. We are not here to discuss the number of angels dancing on pins. No- our business is to draw a logical conclusion from the evidence presented here; Was the heat of a moon journey too much for the design of Apollo and is that something that can be proved? Were the crews' claims of cold space compatible with what we know about the sun's heat? Has this coldness ever been properly explained? Will any detractors from my position ever seriously address this one simple issue? How could Apollo survive the heat of a moon journey? Side: The moonlandings were fake.
0
points
Factlord, my main man! I've read some if your comments on other posts and I see you are an iconoclastic sob, good. You challenged me to prove that science was corrupted by Apollo, well I'm happy to demonstrate just that. I'll start with my own experience of this phenomina : When I was at college, the first time, nearly 40 years ago, I enrolled in a diploma in science and technology. The workload was immense and an extremely steep curve. One of those amazing classes was solely about magnetism and how to predict characteristics and choose inputs and other parameters for magnetic forces. The equations were the same algebra and geometry that crop up time and again in all sorts of engineering fields, but back then it was all new to me. Our lecturer for that course was a savant who could transpose equations and churn out values at the drop of a hat, and without recourse to pencil or pen. He would be considered a genius by any standard, and I've barely met 3 people his equal I could bring to mind. Anyhow, one day we were discussing ambient temperature values for outer space, the vacuum. He regurgitated a value of 4k as a working approximation. This raised a few eyebrows at the time, but how does one judge when one has never left the planet? His reasoning seemed sound: Since temperature is essentially the kenetic energy of molecules, and since the vacuum of space has no molecules the energy between molecules doesn't exist and therefore the temperature must be absolute zero. And, whereas temperature can be calculated by measuring particle velocity and particle move near light speed, sometimes, in space, you could conclude that it must be very hot indeed. However, if it feels like absolute zero, then for my money, it is absolute zero. That was 35 years ago and i still remember it as clear as a bell. But he was wrong on several counts. One, he didn't ever suspect that he was being fed false information to cover up a great hoax. Two, anything in space has molecules, which can bang together; space doesn't have temperature but that doesn't make it cold. Things in space will be at the temperature commensurate with all the incoming heat minus all the outgoing heat plus all the internally generated heat. Thia is just common sense. My savant teacher was duped. But was it just him, No! Take a look around the NASA sites and Wikipedia, I can assure you, you'll find similar nonsense spouted all over. Here's how they teach it: Heat transfer in space. Heat transfers in three way, conduction, convection and radiation. Only radiation can work in space since conduction and convection require matter. So essentially, so far, what we hear here is true, BUT, there is a little ideology, a little suggestion, in the mix. For one thing, all heat transfer is through radiation. So radiation is not one option out of a possible three choices, but is the fundamental process of heat transfer, and it is at play wether heat is connected or conducted or not. This is never seen in any of the common sites mentioned above. I suggest that is not for any good reason, quite the reverse. So after you've seen the section on heat transfer, you will then be appraised of the temperature you will find in space. You will be told, including by NASA astronauts doing the outreach, that objects in space are too hot to touch with bare skin, in the sunlight, but in the shadow they are very, very cold, maybe minus 230 C Commander Chris, from the ISS gave these figures this week during a live utube feed. This cold, cold shadow is based on a misunderstanding by some and a need to support the Apollo hoax by others. They would have you believe, on some of the educational sites that a spanner floating in the sun is 230 C in the bright side and minus 230 Celsius on the darkside. As the spanner spins and tumbles through space it alternates each side to these extremes. Of course, when you examine this critically for yourself, you would require further proof of these great temperature swings. You won't find that proof anywhere, because it doesn't exist. Commander Chris has no reason to presume that the space beyond the terminator, earth shadow, has a temperature of minus 230 C. If that was true then one would immediately freeze on crossing the line, but what exactly would be sucking all the heat from your body? Commander Chris is talking nonsense. Maybe he's just not thinking it through it maybe he realises it's crap, I can't say. Here's what we do know. A spanner in space has a thermal mass like all bodies. Space is a vacuum so heat cannot be sucked away by cold air like on earth. If that spanner is too hot to touch with skin, then it will stay at that temperature after it passes into shadow for some time. If there are no heat sources applied then the spanner will slowly lose all its heat, but if it's in earth orbit then it will soon be back in the sun, long before it is cool, since orbiting bodies have a period of 90 minutes round earth. Even if it stayed in the shadow it would still be heated by earth which radiated a constant heat from its core. That isn't a heat heat for objects so far above, but it's better than 4k. So why do they keep reinforcing the idea of cold space, even though it is patently absurd? Because, they need to explain how Apollo survived. They say the craft cooled by slowly turning on its path's axis. How is that going to cool anything down? They say space is so very cold that just being in shadow is like plunging into a 4k bath. Stupid lies. Have I proved my point or do you want me to begin talking about vacuum ovens and turning little cans of aluminium to see if they cool down even though they are in close proximity to a heat source. Prove you are not a fool. Admit that science has indeed been corrupted by Apollo or prove me wrong. P.S. I'm guessing this is enough for you to be going on with, but just for the record, while we are on the subject of the corruption of science and progress, I want to mention one more item; the tether incident. You may have heard of the tether incident, especially if you like your ufos. That's actually how it came to my attention initially. So what happened was this, NASA deployed a long roll out mat in space to collect solar rays and make juice. The photovoltaic cells were embedded along the length of the array at a length of 2 miles. It was quite an audacious experiment and a coup for renewable energy if it worked. It didn't work. It failed spectacularly. It failed abysmally. It never converted one ampere from the sunlight. But why did it fail? My choose field of study for some years was electricity, and I wanted to know why the design failed. It transpired that the cross sectional area, the csa of the busbars was underrated. That meant the conductors couldn't carry the total power transmitted by the cells. A novice mistake! How had the well paid and savant designers managed to blunder so publicly and so thoroughly? The answer, I suspected was that nasa had provided the wrong initial values for the system. That suspicion was corroborated by an anonymous insider, for home I only have an alias TBH. But it doesn't matter. If such a high profile project can fail, despite the relatively straight forward remit, then something is way wrong. My conjecture is that NASA, attempting to perpetuate the Apollo narrative have reduced the values for all the various energy fields, probably they provided the 1.36kwh per meter square figure that you hear quoted, but which is patently silly for low earth orbit or out in the sun. That is not something I can say more about at this stage because I simple don't know any more about it yet, but there is one more point that I offer for your consideration and again to have on the record. Why moon visits? Why manned space missions at all? When you listen to NASA justify manned space missions you are going to hear some bat shit eating wierd. A lot of what you hear is just made up. For proof of this I would direct you to examine the telling case of The Space Science Laboratory. This little venture never came to full fruition, but NASA did initiate the programme with full pomp and ceremony. The idea was to have a laboratory in low earth orbit, an early forerunner to the ISS. The project hosted various scientific experiment which were to be mounted in modules on board the craft. There are utube vids which you can view today with the news broadcast of the day, showing the experiments being loaded. But those experiments never got on board. They were never really supposed to. The whole project was a military intelligence operation. The science space laboratory was infact a hoax, perpetrated on the Russian military and the US taxpayer. Why, I ask again, manned space flight? Compare manned missions with the Hubble and the JWST. Apollo never actually discovered anything except the gullibility of the public. Despite the noise, there was never one solid discovery or invention that came with all the manned missions. Nasa have the cheek to claim that todays satalites are the legacy of Apollo. Dont they know about Sputnik? Reverse your position if you care about science and about progress. Side: The moonlandings were fake.
2
points
No. They were not faked because the type of lighting needed to re-create the shadows was not available at the time. Side: The moonlandings were not fake
1
point
posting links without any contribution otherwise isn't helping createdebate. Pease could people answer the questions and support one side or the other with a scientific orientation . Btw, I've seen this vid before, infact, I've already left a comment. There are no really good rebuttals to be had here, Adam only ruined his own credibility Side: The moonlandings were fake.
1
point
American boy, you have this esoteric argument about the lighting? How about this: The footage from Apollo shows a rainbow banding effect. That effect is not a characteristic of sunlight. Such banding can only be oroduced by artifical light, therefore the footage was shot in a studio. I have heard this argument from a photographer who does utube vids of his lectures where he exposes the Apollo hoax. I can't say if that proof is right or not because I don't kniw the science. But now that you've made me consider this proof, I will endeavour to learn about it in the future, although I feel confident of the work of Markus Allen in this regard. Moreover, how can you say what tech was available back then? NASA assures us that they has the capability to do moon visits, but that they have lost that ability and that tech. We don't know exactly what tech they have lost, but most are convinced that they cannot go back at present. So it is quite possible, I suppose, that they had the tech to fake a moonlandings, even though nobody else had that tech back then. Side: The moonlandings were fake.
2
points
2
points
1
point
I refer you to an earlier response to the same question. I'm the moderator supposedly but my response here is being flagged up because I have typed enough words. Just to reiterate then: Apollo had no shade nor insulation. It wasn't space worthy, and it couldn't manage low earth orbit . LEO involved only a continuous 40 minute exposure, whereas a moon excursion requires 7 days continual sunshine . The crew only had a thermal roll to protect them. That is testable . Turn a pot in the sun and see if it cools down. Hint, it won't. Side: The moonlandings were fake.
1
point
1
point
Let me explain why I'm winning this argument, it's because people are reading the proof. You'd have to navigate your way around this page to do that, so in case that's a problem for you, I'll prove it again here now, and it won't matter that Australians swore it was true. So Apollo had no shade and no thermal insulation to speak of. Apollo wasn't space worthy, and one single earth orbit would have been very uncomfortable if not deadly. However, a moon excursion would involve 150 hours of continual sunshine. Nobody has ever attempted more than 40 minutes in sun, which is characteristic of low earth orbit. To account for the success the science of thermal dynamics was corrupted and misrepresented. That happened in classrooms, at universities and even in the space industry, leading to some real harm and having a detrimental effect on all of these sectors. It was hot, but the crew of Apollo say they were cold. NASA still explains today how the sun is cold: 'Space is cold', they say. The truth is that the sun is very hot, and very close, and very big. These facts are ignored and played down in all NASA outreach. Heat is a real problem for the ISS, but it's hardly ever mentioned. When it is mentioned, you end up wishing it wasn't, because you are bombarded with nonsense factoids about heat. The truth is very simple, the Apollo craft would be hot on a beach in the summer during the day, and in space it is much hotter. How could people possibly survived that roast. Take a look at the thermal protective roll. The Apollo craft turned slowly as it went. Try this for yourseld: Turn an aluminium pot slowly in the sun and see if it helps it cool down, Hint: it won't. Why would they say something so demonstrable stupid? People want to believe. Or the wanted to believe. Here we are not concerned with belief, this is the science section Side: The moonlandings were fake.
1
point
I wouldn't be surprised if you created an account several seconds after having an active nuclear warhead dropped on your head, judging from how terribly you write your arguments. Also, obviously he does. Do you understand how profitable for the United States government it would be to lie to their population? You have to remember, they were in the middle of a Cold War when we landed on the Moon. So, it would be very good for the government to lie to the population without them knowing. Side: The moonlandings were fake.
2
points
Do you understand how profitable for the United States government it would be to lie to their population? Yes, you have a point, but it is also where you are making your mistake. Just because it would have served their interests does not necessarily mean it happened that way. You have established motive but you have not established that a crime has been committed. The Americans were able to get to the Moon because of Nazi rocket technology, which was years, perhaps decades, ahead of its time. After the allies won the second world war, many Nazi scientists were taken out of Germany by the American military and put to work at places like NASA. Side: The moonlandings were not fake
|
