Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 140
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 3:50 pm Post Subject: Apollo Missions an Elaborate Hoax?
The US Civilian Space Agency (NASA) has announced plans to send four astronauts to the Moon in 2018.
To do so, they intend to spend $US100 billion and the next 12 years building the spacecraft and rockets it needs.
This strikes me as somewhat odd on a couple of counts...
On May 25, 1961, President Kennedy announced to the nation (USA) a goal of sending an American to the Moon before the end of the decade.
At that time, the US not not yet even been successful in placing a man in orbit around the Earth.
(Alan Shepherd's flight of 5 May 1961 was sub-orbital. John Glenn's first US orbital flight took place on 20 February 1962.)
Despite the major set-back of the Apollo 1 launch-pad fire, resulting in the deaths of astronauts Chaffee, White and Grissom, the Apollo program supposedly culminated in the successful landing of Apollo 11 on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility on 20 July 1969 and five more successful missions up until December 1972.
By my calculations, that means that even with what is now forty year old technology, it only took eight years to imagine, design, develop and bring about.
Further, the cost of the entire Apollo program from 1 -17 was about $US24 Billion (I found a figure equating that to about $US100 Billion in 1994 dollars).
So, forty-five years later, with all the advances in our experience of space exploration, in science, materials, launch vehicles and other technologies.. it is going to take twice as long and four times as much money to achieve as it did in the sixties....
Isn't that odd?
Odder still, is that if you as a private citizen, would like to take a trip from Earth, around the Moon and back to Earth (this is without landing on the Moon) then you can buy such a trip today for 1/1000 of the NASA price.
US firm Space Adventures http://www.spaceadventures.com has so far brokered three space tourist flights. Dennis Tito (USA) in April 2001, Mark Shuttleworth (South Africa) in April 2002 and Greg Olsen (USA) later this year - for around $US20 Million each. Space Adventures partner with the Russian Space agency and offer trips to the International Space Station aboard their Soyuz spacecraft.
For $US100 Million, Space Adventures and the Russian Space Agency will take you on a free-return-trajectory mission to the moon in a Lunar-Rated Soyuz spacecraft. This is technology the Russians developed prior to, but shelved after, the Apollo 8 round-the-moon mission in December 1968.
NASA is said to be developing new launch vehicles for their projected 2018 mission and beyond. In fact, their are two complete giant Saturn V launch vehicles, capable of lifting 120 tons into orbit, on museum display. These were originally built for the cancelled Apollo 19 and 20 missions.
Whether or not the Apollo Missions of the 1960's and 1970's were an elaborate hoax, surely it is beyond belief that US space technology has gone backwards over the past 45 years!
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:09 pm Post Subject:
When he visited New Zealand a few years ago, during an interview by Holmes on TV1, kiwi Dr William H Pickering (1910 - 2004) dropped a bit of a bombshell. He stated that the NASA shuttles were designed to go to the moon. So the technology is there now. If NASA feel that the existing shuttles are getting a bit tired, then just build a couple more, cheap. Payload capacity (largest to date: 22800 kg) is surely quite adequate for any moon mission requirement they may have. So where is the need for new technology and the bill that comes with it?
If Pickering said that the shuttle can go to the moon, then it can.
William Pickering 1998, holding the two Time magazines he appeared on the cover of.
Quote:
William H. Pickering (1910- ) obtained his bachelors and masters degrees in electrical engineering, then a Ph.D. in physics from Caltech before becoming a professor of electrical engineering there in 1946. In 1944 he organised the electronics efforts at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to support guided missile research and development, becoming project manager for Corporal, the first operational missile JPL developed. From 1954 to 1976 he was director of JPL, which developed the first U.S. satellite (Explorer I), the first successful U.S. circumlunar space probe (Pioneer IV), the Mariner flights to Venus and Mars in the early to mid-1960s, the Ranger photographic missions to the moon in 1964-65, and the Surveyor lunar landings of 1966-67.
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 140
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:12 pm Post Subject:
Here is still more evidence of something fishy about NASA's bookkeeping at least...
Quote:
Private Sector, Low-Cost Lunar Plan Unveiled
A newly released study has focused on how best to return people to the Moon, reporting that future lunar missions can be done for under $10 billion - far less than a NASA price tag....
...NASA has tallied its future lunar mission costs, projecting a figure of $104 billion over 13 years.
According to SpaceDev's chief, Jim Benson, the private group has found that a more comprehensive series of missions could be completed in a fraction of the time and for one-tenth of the cost of the NASA estimate...
...In outlining their study findings, SpaceDev has blueprinted a conceptual mission architecture and design for a human servicing mission to the lunar south pole - targeted for the period between 2010 and 2015.
Along with US firm Space Adventures, mentioned in my original post, that's now two private sector organisations that reckon they can undertake manned lunar voyages in far less time and at a fraction of the cost that NASA is aiming to spend.
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Christchurch
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:16 pm Post Subject:
well, i don't believe we ever went to the moon.
how did human beings make it through the van allen radiation belt, when the soviets dogs came back fried from radiation? did the aluminium skin of the capsule protect them? or was it those super 1960s technology nylon gloves? i mean, at least today we have polypro! 8)
how about the moon having no atmosphere, the astronauts are exposed to the pure vacuum of space. that means, facing the sun, the temperatures would have fried them like bacon. nasa countered this by saying there was a secret air conditioning unit in their backpacks :-) !
there are heaps of other pieces that don't fit.. and at least worthy of investigation if so interested.
the one that takes the cake: in the white house apparently there is a picture of neil armstrong in full astronaut uniform, with president nixon both wearing their 33 degree mason belts and laughing.. it's no stretch to imagine what they are laughing about.
Im pretty sure they went to the moon. Checked out mountains of evidence to say otherwise, however I think some of the footage released as being from the moon was done in a studio to cover a lot of the footage they couldnt show you. This being due to anomalous objects and lighting appearing in a portion of their filming ( they were being watched after all :wink: )
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:54 am Post Subject:
Did the Apollo missions really go to the moon?
No matter how much of the official and unofficial/anomalous information we study, we will never know with absolute certainty one way or the other. Whatever we personally end up deciding will probably mainly depend on what we want to believe.
I watched the moon landings live on TV back in 1969 and it was the most thrilling experience of my life up to that point. So when I first heard that there were people saying that it did not happen, I was not very impressed, in fact I was very scathing towards these 'idiots'.
Now that was quite some time ago, since then, with the help of the internet I have begun the process of re-educating myself - especially in regard to History. The sad fact is that nothing is as it appears, nothing! For me the toughest struggle has been in letting go of what I know. We tend to be proud of our knowledge, in a sense it is a valuable part of our identity. Opinions, hypotheses and theories though are something else - and are to be encouraged - in my opinion. :-)
So saying all of that, my opinion about the Moon landings is that the official history is garbage. There appears to have been fakery aplenty from NASA and all. Whether this means that they simply added studio footage in order to supplement actual footage (as Deano suggests), or that they didn't go there at all (except with unmanned craft) and the whole event was just a PR exercise, well who can say for certain...
The most compelling fact that to me indicates strongly that they didn't go to the Moon is that they have never been back. Especially when I heard this (from a post above):
Quote:
When he visited New Zealand a few years ago, during an interview by Holmes on TV1, kiwi Dr William H Pickering (1910 - 2004) dropped a bit of a bombshell. He stated that the NASA shuttles were designed to go to the moon. So the technology is there now. If NASA feel that the existing shuttles are getting a bit tired, then just build a couple more, cheap. Payload capacity (largest to date: 22800 kg) is surely quite adequate for any moon mission requirement they may have. So where is the need for new technology and the bill that comes with it?
If Pickering said that the shuttle can go to the moon, then it can.
They have never even photographed the Moon landing sites despite having the technology to do so. NASA initially maintained that Hubble was not capable of photographing the Moon's surface, too close, too bright. Lately, though, they've been releasing Hubble pics of the surface - but not the Apollo sites.
They could have been there and have been warned off, as some suggest. The thousands of anomalous observations and pics recorded for over a hundred years, of lights, clouds, structures, moving giant craft etc, certainly indicate a presence on the Moon that most probably is not us.
Of course, the Apollo extravaganza together with the anomalies may just have been a manufactured entertainment to keep us all occupied and distracted away from what really matters in this world. Sort of like how the JFK assassination has become and 9-11 or Clinton and Lewinski was, or sport, or video games, or the products from the entertainment industry, or how they portray politics in this country etc etc etc...
One of the most interesting presentations we've seen on Apollo mission anomalies is a video called "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon". It covers the usual suspects of Van Allen belts, shadows, wind, photographic aberrations etc, but also includes some original NASA footage, which the producers maintain was, well this is what they have to say:
Quote:
In my research at NASA I uncovered, deep in the archives, one mislabelled reel from the Apollo 11, first mission, to the moon. What is on the reel and on the label are completely different. (I suspect an editor put the wrong label on the tape thirty-three years ago and no reporter ever had the motive to be as thorough as I.) It contains an hour of rare, unedited, colour television footage that is dated by NASA's own atomic clock three days into the flight. This footage is included in my DVD, Apollo 11 Monkey Business. Identified on camera are Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, and Michael Collins. They are doing multiple "takes" of a single shot of the mission, from which only about ten seconds was ever broadcast. Because I have uncovered the original unedited version, mistakenly not destroyed, the photography proves to be a clever forgery! Really! IT MEANS THEY DID NOT WALK ON THE MOON!
The footage is indeed very compelling. The reviews on Amazon seem to give the video (DVD, in this case) either one star or five - that should tell us something... :?
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Christchurch
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:33 am Post Subject:
John Anderson wrote:
Did the Apollo missions really go to the moon?
No matter how much of the official and unofficial/anomalous information we study, we will never know with absolute certainty one way or the other. Whatever we personally end up deciding will probably mainly depend on what we want to believe.
I watched the moon landings live on TV back in 1969 and it was the most thrilling experience of my life up to that point. So when I first heard that there were people saying that it did not happen, I was not very impressed, in fact I was very scathing towards these 'idiots'.
Now that was quite some time ago, since then, with the help of the internet I have begun the process of re-educating myself - especially in regard to History. The sad fact is that nothing is as it appears, nothing! For me the toughest struggle has been in letting go of what I know. We tend to be proud of our knowledge, in a sense it is a valuable part of our identity. Opinions, hypotheses and theories though are something else - and are to be encouraged - in my opinion. :-)
So saying all of that, my opinion about the Moon landings is that the official history is garbage. There appears to have been fakery aplenty from NASA and all. Whether this means that they simply added studio footage in order to supplement actual footage (as Deano suggests), or that they didn't go there at all (except with unmanned craft) and the whole event was just a PR exercise, well who can say for certain...
The most compelling fact that to me indicates strongly that they didn't go to the Moon is that they have never been back. Especially when I heard this (from a post above):
Quote:
When he visited New Zealand a few years ago, during an interview by Holmes on TV1, kiwi Dr William H Pickering (1910 - 2004) dropped a bit of a bombshell. He stated that the NASA shuttles were designed to go to the moon. So the technology is there now. If NASA feel that the existing shuttles are getting a bit tired, then just build a couple more, cheap. Payload capacity (largest to date: 22800 kg) is surely quite adequate for any moon mission requirement they may have. So where is the need for new technology and the bill that comes with it?
If Pickering said that the shuttle can go to the moon, then it can.
They have never even photographed the Moon landing sites despite having the technology to do so. NASA initially maintained that Hubble was not capable of photographing the Moon's surface, too close, too bright. Lately, though, they've been releasing Hubble pics of the surface - but not the Apollo sites.
They could have been there and have been warned off, as some suggest. The thousands of anomalous observations and pics recorded for over a hundred years, of lights, clouds, structures, moving giant craft etc, certainly indicate a presence on the Moon that most probably is not us.
Of course, the Apollo extravaganza together with the anomalies may just have been a manufactured entertainment to keep us all occupied and distracted away from what really matters in this world. Sort of like how the JFK assassination has become and 9-11 or Clinton and Lewinski was, or sport, or video games, or the products from the entertainment industry, or how they portray politics in this country etc etc etc...
One of the most interesting presentations we've seen on Apollo mission anomalies is a video called "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon". It covers the usual suspects of Van Allen belts, shadows, wind, photographic aberrations etc, but also includes some original NASA footage, which the producers maintain was, well this is what they have to say:
Quote:
In my research at NASA I uncovered, deep in the archives, one mislabelled reel from the Apollo 11, first mission, to the moon. What is on the reel and on the label are completely different. (I suspect an editor put the wrong label on the tape thirty-three years ago and no reporter ever had the motive to be as thorough as I.) It contains an hour of rare, unedited, colour television footage that is dated by NASA's own atomic clock three days into the flight. This footage is included in my DVD, Apollo 11 Monkey Business. Identified on camera are Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, and Michael Collins. They are doing multiple "takes" of a single shot of the mission, from which only about ten seconds was ever broadcast. Because I have uncovered the original unedited version, mistakenly not destroyed, the photography proves to be a clever forgery! Really! IT MEANS THEY DID NOT WALK ON THE MOON!
The footage is indeed very compelling. The reviews on Amazon seem to give the video (DVD, in this case) either one star or five - that should tell us something... :?
john,
excellent post! 8)
i was like you. then, i decided to look into it.. what i discovered.. on the balance of the evidence, especially the physics, made me cry. i, too remember watching the original moon landing.. i was in "kindy".. and the memory is vivid.. i can even remember the tv stand color, where we sat, the smell of the new carpet, sitting "indian style" on the carpet... that's how intense the excitement was for me... since my dad was in aerospace and had worked with nasa before it was nasa.. it was "naca" the memory is burned into the mind. needless to say, some who examine the evidence today refuse to believe it.. and just choose not to.. fine. changing one's entire worldview is a harrowing task.
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 140
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:01 pm Post Subject:
Hi Everyone,
Thanks to all who have posted your comments. I'm really enjoying seeing everyone's views on this topic.
Like you Heiro, I was just a nipper when Apollo was in the news. The only one I can actually remember watching was Apollo 17 in December 1972, when I had just turned seven years old. :)
The Apollo missions have always held a special fascination for me - even until today. I suppose it's a product of being little at the time it was happening (or not, depending on your view) ... It was real 'Boy's Own' stuff, huge rockets and spaceships, exploration, danger, fire and noise... What a superb adventure for any kid to imagine.
It sparked my own amateur interest in the sciences and as a teenager I even imported my own flying model rockets from the US and built and flew them.
Years later, when I began investigating Apollo more deeply and discovered the idea of the whole program being a hugely elaborate hoax, I initially shunned the idea completely. I didn't want to imagine that such a thing could be true.
Yet as I learned more, it became impossible to deny some of the very good evidence shown that the official record has some very meaningful holes in it.
Equally, I don't believe that it can be denied that their is very good evidence that the Apollo missions really did take place.
The plain fact is, I don't know whether they really happened or not...
I am currently reading everything I can find on the topic, most recently, biographies and memoirs of the astronauts concerned and their respective missions.
The impression I am left with is that far from being the heroic figures depicted in the media, these were a truly odd bunch of guys. Now it could be argued that they needed to be, in order to achieve the missions they undertook... Who knows.
One of the major issues raised by proponents of the Apollo Hoax is the issue of radiation and the astronauts passage through the Van Allen radiation belts. But some fairly basic mathematics can dispel the idea that Van Allen's Belts render manned trans-lunar flight impossible.
The inner Van Allen Radiation Belt extends from an altitude of 650km to 6,500km with it's greatest intensity between 2,000 and 5,000km. This belt, actually kind of donut shaped, is contained to an area over the equator, and is where the high energy, more dangerous radiation lurks. It is harmful to men and equipment launch 'windows' generally avoid sending men or equipment through this high energy area.
The outer belt is from around 10,000km to 65,000km in altitude and the most intense region is between 14,500 and 19,000km.
An object in orbit, such as a satellite, protected by 3mm of aluminium, will receive a radiation dose of approximately 2500 REM or 25 sv, per year. That is some major radiation. Received over the period of a year, it would kill anything stone dead - several times over.
However, take into account that in order to escape Earths gravity, an Apollo spacecraft had an 'escape velocity' of 27,500mph or over seven miles per second (44,250km per hour).
This gives an exposed period of 1.45 hours and an absorbed radiation dose of 0.41 REM or 0.0041 sv. This is defined as a low dosage (less than 1 sv) and is about twice what any average human receives from normal background radiation in the course of a year. It is enough to perhaps give a slightly elevated risk of cancer in later life, but certainly won't kill you.
I'll comment later (after some more reading) on some of the maths featured in the introduction movie on http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie which doesn't seem to add up either.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:40 pm Post Subject:
Hi Hiero,
Quote:
john,
excellent post!
i was like you. then, i decided to look into it.. what i discovered.. on the balance of the evidence, especially the physics, made me cry. i, too remember watching the original moon landing.. i was in "kindy".. and the memory is vivid.. i can even remember the tv stand color, where we sat, the smell of the new carpet, sitting "indian style" on the carpet... that's how intense the excitement was for me... since my dad was in aerospace and had worked with nasa before it was nasa.. it was "naca" the memory is burned into the mind. needless to say, some who examine the evidence today refuse to believe it.. and just choose not to.. fine. changing one's entire worldview is a harrowing task.
Thanks. Yes, harrowing is a good word for it. My heart has had cause to sink on many occasions as favourite perceptions have evaporated in front of my eyes. :cry: Still, I have a few left, the Rumble in the Jungle remains as my most thrilling and satisfying live event in sport. At least Muhammad Ali has never let me down. :-) If anyone discovers that the Ali, Foreman fight was a fix or never happened, keep it to yourself, I don't want to know – ever!!! :-$
In early 2004, US President George W Bush outlined a vision of returning humans back to the moon by 2020 and eventually to Mars. Some had hoped such a programme would reignite public interest in the space programme that has waned since the 1960s and early 1970s.
"We must also acknowledge the plain fact that we cannot do everything that was on our plate when I assumed office," Nasa administrator Michael Griffin said in prepared remarks to a conference of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco...
How very convenient... Why not just recommission some of the gear they have hanging around in the smithsonian, give it a dust off and get back up there? 8)
During the first missions, supposedly, they went to the moon with less computing power than our old Apple Mac SE had (years later we had to upgrade the memory just so we could load some new printer drivers!) :?
Imagine they spent all of that money on ending poverty.. Mind you, considering the governments reputation - they would probably just create more poverty.
The space shuttle was not designed to go to the moon. The propulsion system, active thermal control system, and life support system were all sized based on a roughly two week mission to low earth orbit. Saying that the "shuttle was designed to go to the moon" is about like saying that the shuttle was designed to fly passengers from Florida to Sydney.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:48 pm Post Subject:
Hi rgs,
Welcome to our forum. I note your comments with interest...
Quote:
The space shuttle was not designed to go to the moon. The propulsion system, active thermal control system, and life support system were all sized based on a roughly two week mission to low earth orbit. Saying that the "shuttle was designed to go to the moon" is about like saying that the shuttle was designed to fly passengers from Florida to Sydney.
... in response to my statement...
Quote:
When he visited New Zealand a few years ago, during an interview by Holmes on TV1, kiwi Dr William H Pickering (1910 - 2004) dropped a bit of a bombshell. He stated that the NASA shuttles were designed to go to the moon. So the technology is there now. If NASA feel that the existing shuttles are getting a bit tired, then just build a couple more, cheap. Payload capacity (largest to date: 22800 kg) is surely quite adequate for any moon mission requirement they may have. So where is the need for new technology and the bill that comes with it?
If Pickering said that the shuttle can go to the moon, then it can.
Any moderate research will reveal that there is a great deal of misinformation and disinformation associated with the subject of the Moon and travel there. It does appear that NASA et al have a vested interest in not being able to 'go back' to the Moon for whatever reason. Thus no information from any form of space authority should be accepted without a great deal of caution, even technical specifications.
Often what people say in casual conversation, in unguarded moments, can reveal much, for instance:
Quote:
Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit over 35 years ago.
Or an equally careless Donald Rumsfeld referring to the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon, as a Missile...
The interview that Paul Holmes did with William Pickering was a very casual and relatively light-hearted occasion, from memory they were walking together at the time. Pickering’s pronouncement about the shuttle's moon capability was an off-the-cuff comment that he stated definitely and matter of factly. Pickering had no reason to lie, or to present disinformation at that time, nor could a space exploration and policy-maker insider like himself have made a mistake with the facts, he would simply not have been capable of that.
So, I reiterate: If Pickering said that the shuttle can go to the moon, then it can. If it hasn’t gone to the Moon, then for their own reasons NASA et al don’t want it to go there - nor it would seem, to have it be known that it can go there.
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Christchurch
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:38 pm Post Subject:
John Anderson wrote:
Hi rgs,
Welcome to our forum. I note your comments with interest...
Quote:
The space shuttle was not designed to go to the moon. The propulsion system, active thermal control system, and life support system were all sized based on a roughly two week mission to low earth orbit. Saying that the "shuttle was designed to go to the moon" is about like saying that the shuttle was designed to fly passengers from Florida to Sydney.
... in response to my statement...
Quote:
When he visited New Zealand a few years ago, during an interview by Holmes on TV1, kiwi Dr William H Pickering (1910 - 2004) dropped a bit of a bombshell. He stated that the NASA shuttles were designed to go to the moon. So the technology is there now. If NASA feel that the existing shuttles are getting a bit tired, then just build a couple more, cheap. Payload capacity (largest to date: 22800 kg) is surely quite adequate for any moon mission requirement they may have. So where is the need for new technology and the bill that comes with it?
If Pickering said that the shuttle can go to the moon, then it can.
Any moderate research will reveal that there is a great deal of misinformation and disinformation associated with the subject of the Moon and travel there. It does appear that NASA et al have a vested interest in not being able to 'go back' to the Moon for whatever reason. Thus no information from any form of space authority should be accepted without a great deal of caution, even technical specifications.
Often what people say in casual conversation, in unguarded moments, can reveal much, for instance:
Quote:
Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit over 35 years ago.
Or an equally careless Donald Rumsfeld referring to the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon, as a Missile...
The interview that Paul Holmes did with William Pickering was a very casual and relatively light-hearted occasion, from memory they were walking together at the time. Pickering’s pronouncement about the shuttle's moon capability was an off-the-cuff comment that he stated definitely and matter of factly. Pickering had no reason to lie, or to present disinformation at that time, nor could a space exploration and policy-maker insider like himself have made a mistake with the facts, he would simply not have been capable of that.
So, I reiterate: If Pickering said that the shuttle can go to the moon, then it can. If it hasn’t gone to the Moon, then for their own reasons NASA et al don’t want it to go there - nor it would seem, to have it be known that it can go there.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:02 pm Post Subject:
The strangeness continues:
Quote:
One giant cock-up for mankind
By Robert Colvile. Filed: 14/08/2006
The original film of man's first steps on the Moon has been lost.
The tv footage was the equivalent of a photocopy of a photocopy, not as clear as the photograph above
The footage of Neil Armstrong's historic moment is one of the most important artefacts of the 20th century.
While the television broadcast seen by 600 million people in July 1969 is preserved for posterity, the original tapes from which the footage was taken have been mislaid in the vast archive of the United States space agency Nasa.
The footage could transform our view of the Moon landings, offering images far sharper than the blurred, grainy video shown around the world.
It could also lay to rest the conspiracy theory that the landings were faked on a Hollywood soundstage.
Despite its iconic status, the television footage was the equivalent of a photocopy of a photocopy.
It came from a camera that had been pointed at a black-and-white monitor. The image on the monitor, in turn, had already been stripped of much of its detail.
To make sure the transmission would make it back to Earth, the images sent from Apollo 11 were recorded at 10 frames per second, and had to be converted to 60fps in order to be broadcast.
In the process, much of the detail was lost.
Stan Lebar, now 81, was in charge of the images from Apollo 11. What he saw was so blurred that he initially thought something had gone wrong.
"My immediate reaction when I looked over at my counterparts at Nasa was 'What's happening?'," he recalled. "We thought there had been a problem getting the converter to work properly.
"What was broadcast to the world was nowhere near as good as what was received," said John Sarkissian, of the CSIRO Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, one of the three tracking stations that taped the original footage before sending it on to Houston in converted form.
Those tapes, although nowhere near the standard of normal television transmissions, would still be of far better quality than the video we have today, especially if processed using modern digital techniques.
But rather than being prized as vital recordings, Nasa simply filed them away. And as personnel retired or died, the location of the tapes was forgotten.
Although this has attracted criticism, such problems are not unique to Nasa.
"I just think this is what happens when you have a large government bureaucracy that functions for decade after decade," said Keith Cowing, the editor of the website Nasa Watch.
"It's not malicious or intentional, but I think it's unfortunate that Nasa doesn't have maybe just one more person whose job it is to look back at its history."
At the start of this year, a coalition of scientists and Nasa veterans - including Mr Lebar, Mr Sarkissian and Richard Nafzger, a senior engineer at Nasa - began to hunt through the archives.
Thus far, they have deduced that the tapes were forwarded to the US National Archives, before being called back by Nasa to be stored at the Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland.
Goddard is also home to the only equipment that can still play the tapes, which use an obsolete 14in format - equipment that was due to be dismantled in October until Mr Nafzger intervened.
Now the group hopes to persuade Nasa to devote enough manpower to the search.
A spokesman for the space agency said: "We're trying to track them down through the paperwork created at the time - but it's 35 years ago, so it's a challenge."
Mr Cowing said: "For all we know, it's sitting somewhere in a nice, cool dry place, exactly where it should be, but someone's mislabelled a routing slip.
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 140
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:31 pm Post Subject: Search For Apollo 11 TV Tapes Moves Into High Gear
A further article on the "search" for the original Apollo 11 tapes.
Looks to me like NASA are setting the stage to announce that these records have been destroyed... (How convenient!)
Quote:
Hopeful…but realistic
As for the search now ongoing, Perkins explained: “We’re hopeful, but at the same time realistic.”
Tapes of the sort being sought were highly specialized, Perkins continued, typically kept only until a mission was completed.
“It would have been common procedure to reuse such tapes for other missions or to destroy them at some point,” Perkins advised.
“Our hope is that someone had the foresight to realize that this might happen one day, and put the tapes into permanent storage rather than following typical procedure,” Perkins said. “Finding the records will give us the answer one way or the other.”
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 173
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:05 pm Post Subject: has anyone found this link?
I to wonder if NASA ever made it to the moon. I wasn't even born at the time so I have no attachment to the situation, I do have a couple comments.
One would think that using the shuttles to carry piece/s of a moon landing craft into orbit then assembling(if any) it and then lanuching it from earths orbit would be far cheaper and easier than trying to send something from ground level up to the moon in one go! and managing its re entry to earth again( the most dangerous part)
Some of the benefits would be, you would have a re usable vehicle to travel to the moon etc, and it would only need re fueling and it could doc with the old space station. it also wouldn't need a lot of fuel to get there in the first place.
There is a video called Illumanti in space(may be available or google video or www.davidicke.com) or something I have a copy and as in most of these conspircy videos if you ignore the religious crap, it has some interesting information.
One other thing that makes me think well maybe they did make it to the moon is a audio recording of Armstrong and co freaking out about what they are calling "critters standing watching us" and "they are just over that ridge" "they just watching us" this recording has mission control talking back etc etc and is real. I'll try and find it, if you guys dont first and post it on my website.
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:57 pm Post Subject: My two cents
I for one am adamant that no man has ever walked on earth let alone left a close earth orbit. The numerous inconsistencies in the official line are well known, and NASA's recent announcement that it had lost the original footage is laughable. But my theory goes something like this; The hard word was put on NASA to get a man on the moon in less than a decade, after a while and billions of dollars it became obvious that this was and remains an impossible task, so they invented a story about UFO's and cordoned off area 69 where they made a movie of the first moon landing, hence the bizarre multiple source lighting seen in many of the images. The movies were such a hit and so much cheaper than actually going to the moon that they made another one and so on. The conspiracy could have been cleared up years ago by simply focusing the Hubble on the various landing sites, the Luna Landers would still be there, as would the tracks of the moon buggies, and footsteps of the astronauts. The reality is man will never leave a close earth orbit until we can get a six foot thick lead space craft to shield the spacemen from lethal radiation. The Russians sent dogs and monkeys into deep space and those poor creatures were dead within minutes, thats why they gave up on the space race. The sunspot activity during the Apollo 16 mission was at the height of its 11 year cycle, yet they went to the moon and back in suits made of fibreglass in a spaceship made of tin foil. There are dozens of inconsistencies but the radiation issue is for me the fundamental question that has yet to be answered satisfactorily.
The conspiracy could have been cleared up years ago by simply focusing the Hubble on the various landing sites, the Luna Landers would still be there...
Couldnt agree more would have silenced the critics straight away.
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 140
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:42 pm Post Subject: Hubble Pics of the Moon
Interestingly Deano, there ARE Hubble Space Telescope (HST) pictures of the Moon.
After years of saying that Hubble couldn't be aimed at the Moon because it is too bright for its cameras, the HST was aimed at the Moon and images were gathered. This was during experiments to calibrate the HST cameras to the Sun's (reflected) light spectrum - and prospect for minerals in the lunar geology in August 2005.
They even took pics of the Apollo15 landing site in the Hadley-Apennine ranges and the Apollo 17 landing site in the Taurus-Littrow valley.
Guess what... No Apollo junk!
Apparently this device that can resolve a picture of the beginning of time, can't resolve an image of anything on the Moon that is smaller than 86 metres (280 feet) across!!!
In the interests of balance, I found an argument as to why this might be:
"Anyone with normal eyesight can see the Andromeda Spiral Galaxy easily with the naked eye, and that's over 2 million light years away, yet cannot see a lander on the Moon."
Maybe.... I'll leave you all to form you own opinions.
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:44 am Post Subject: See this
I recommend seeing the doco "A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon", in this the producers got hold off old archival footage which proves fairly well that apollo landings were faked. Nasa mistakenly sent these guys some footage that was never released or used. It shows the truth !
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:25 pm Post Subject: Wheres the flag?
If they did land on the moon (which I hope they did). Where is the flag?
And why did they not dismiss the contradictive theorys by showing the world images of the flag on the moon from our satalites of today?
In my oppinion thats all it would take, show us the flag.
With google maps you can pick out individual houses and even Identify tree species and those satalites are for the public, why cant google just turn them around and find the flag?
The images of the moons surface would be far clearer than the surface of earth for obvious reasons.
This would end the conspiracies, so why has it not been done.
It would be a big suprise to me if im the only one who thaught of this.
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 173
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:39 am Post Subject:
As a moon land owner, I think it would be a breach of my privacy for someone to be spying on my property and potential none paying tenants(moon men).
The thing with the moon landing is you can counter almost all the arguments either way, but the real proof will be if anyone goes back there again in our life time.
I hope they do go back, as i would love to vacation on the moon it wood be so cool! :twisted: . Virgin airlines and others look to be making this a real possiblity.
