• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

What Happened On the Moon? - An Investigation Into Apollo

C'mon guys. Renew my 1970's childhood faith in Big Daddy Fed.Gov.

Show me how those NASA photos are genuine with no acrobat wires, no studio lights, and no transparencies over the window.
 
You should check out the link I posted last night, if you haven't yet. If you have, what do you find inadequate about its explanations?
 
I glanced at your link. It might be what I'm looking for.

I don't have time time this morning, but I will give it a thorough read later.

Thanks man!
 
It's possible the pictures and videos were created on a soundstage to show the masses something other then a blurry mess. According to some landing deniers it would be impossible for the astronauts to manipulate a camera with those bulky gloves.
 
Here's an excellent and detailed discussion of the camera equipment used on Apollo 11:
Apollo 11 Mission Photography
moon_hasselblad.jpg
 
Last edited:
It would be much better of these websites refrained from hysterical name-calling and ridicule, and instead just presented facts.

On this, we can agree. I can't get over how insulting people can be toward people who hold different viewpoints.

Just take a look at the IMDB board for Room 237. Lots and lots of name calling and insults toward the people who were interviewed for the film.
 
On this, we can agree. I can't get over how insulting people can be toward people who hold different viewpoints.

...
When it comes to the moon landing deniers, I'm insulted on behalf of the guys who went to the moon and risked their lives doing so, and the many engineers etc who dedicated their lives to space exploration. Point is, it's not just a matter of viewpoints, it's a matter of decency and respect.

In videos, I've seen the exasperated hurt in the eyes of e.g. Buzz Aldrin when he's been confronted by people who angrily attack him in public for being part of a conspiracy, and for faking something that he is immensely proud of, and should be proud of. Those astronauts have my full sympathy when I consider the conspiracy nuts.

Please don't take it personal, I see you are not denying the moon landing, I'm just explaining the mechanism, since you asked.

Personally, I'd be livid if I was on the receiving end of those conspiracy guys, and I can actually get angry about it even though it has nothing to do with me, personally.

We all have a duty to speak the truth, and the truth is that the aggresive proponents of the moon-conspiracy are ignorant, and very likely petty and jealous, so it's fine by me if they are told to simply stfu and crawl back into their cave. It's the most constructive solution I can see at this point, since reason doesn't work.
 
When it comes to the moon landing deniers, I'm insulted on behalf of the guys who went to the moon and risked their lives doing so, and the many engineers etc who dedicated their lives to space exploration. Point is, it's not just a matter of viewpoints, it's a matter of decency and respect.

Thank you for saying what I've been feeling but not really realizing it.

All you Yanks should stand tall knowing you sent men to the damn moon and back. Hell, it was giant leap for mankind.

We have footprints on the moon.

Damn, man. It's something to be proud of. Not something to ignorantly try to tear down for the sake of conspiracy dogma.

When dogma takes hold of society and it willfully ignores proof, science, and evidence, we get stuff like Galileo being locked up for the rest of his life for heliocentrism, which was verifiable with anyone with a thinking mind and the right tools at the time.
 
When it comes to the moon landing deniers, I'm insulted on behalf of the guys who went to the moon and risked their lives doing so, and the many engineers etc who dedicated their lives to space exploration. Point is, it's not just a matter of viewpoints, it's a matter of decency and respect.

Well, being a believer that we really did go to the moon, I agree that these men are deserving of the utmost respect, not only for their accomplishment, but also for their courage. (Success was not guaranteed after all, and failure very possibly could have meant cold, lonely death.)

But I guess my point is this:

The brain has an interesting way of interpreting information. Most of us are going to look at all the available facts and arguments and conclude that, yes, we really did go to the moon. But if someone interprets this data differently, and they truly, sincerely arrive at the conclusion that the whole thing was a put on and that the astronauts who claim they went to the moon are lying scumbag bastards, then wouldn't you agree that they have a RESPONSIBILITY to try to expose this fraud?
 
i think they went aswell, but i dont believe they landed not for one second.

for me, it's the weight against the thrust and speed capability of the saturn 5 rocket.


Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky (b. 1959)[191] is a Russian candidate of technical sciences and General Director of the scientific-manufacturing enterprise "Project-D-MSK".[192]

In 2007, he studied the filmed staging of the first stage (S-IC) of the Saturn V rocket after the launch of Apollo 11.[193] Analysing it frame by frame, he calculated the actual speed of the Saturn V rocket at S-IC staging time using four different, independent and mutually verifying methods. With all of them, the calculated speed turned out to be at maximum half (1.2 km/s) of the declared one at that point (2.4 km/s). He concluded that due to this, no more than 28 t could be brought on the way to the Moon, including the spacecraft, instead of the 46 t declared by NASA, and so a loop around the Moon was possible but not a manned landing on the Moon with return to the Earth.[194][195][196][197]

In 2008, Pokrovsky also claimed to have determined the reason why a higher speed was impossible—problems with the Inconel X-750 superalloy used for the tubes of the wall of the thrust chamber of the F-1 engine,[198] whose physics of high-temperature strength was not yet studied at that time. The strength of the material changes when affected by high temperature and plastic deformations. As a result, the F-1 engine thrust had to be lowered by at least 20%. With these assumptions, he calculated that the real speed would be the same as he had already estimated (see above). Pokrovsky proved that six or more F-1 engines (instead of five) could not be used due to the increased fuel mass required by each new engine, which in turn would require more engines, and so on.[196][197][199][200]

Pokrovsky claims that his Saturn V speed estimation is the "first direct proof of the impossibility of the Apollo Moon landing".[192] He says that fifteen specialists with scientific degrees (e.g. Alexander Budnik)[201] who reviewed his paper, of which at least five aerodynamics experts and three narrow specialists in ultrasonic movement and aerosols, raised no objections in principle, and the specific wishes and notes they (e.g. Vladimir Surdin)[202] did have could not change his results significantly even if followed.[203][204] Pokrovsky compares his own frame-by-frame analysis of the filmed Saturn V flight to the frame-by-frame analysis of the filmed Trinity nuclear test (1945) done by the Soviet academician Leonid Sedov who created his own blast wave theory to estimate the then top secret power of the explosion.[205]

See also author's note below.[206] Pokrovsky's findings about the rocket speed were later confirmed by Alexander Reshnyak and Alexander Popov (see below) and his smoke lag method proven to be valid.[207]

Alexander Popov
Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov (b. 1943) is a Russian senior research associate, doctor of physical-mathematical sciences, and author of more than 100 scientific works and inventions in the fields of laser optics and spectroscopy.[208]

Helped by more than forty volunteers, most of which with scientific degrees,[209] he wrote the book "Americans on the Moon" (2009).[210][211] In it, Popov placed the burden of proof on NASA,[209] and denied all Moon landing evidence, dividing it to five groups:

  1. Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.
  2. Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.
  3. Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.
  4. Devices on Moon (e.g., light reflectors)—by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.
  5. Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g., for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.
Thus he concluded that the NASA claims on Moon landings are left unproven, and pursuant to science rules, in the absence of trustworthy evidence, the event, in this case the American Moon landings and their loops around the Moon, cannot be considered real, that is, having taken place.[13] He also confirmed Pokrovsky's results for the speed of the Saturn V at S-IC staging time (see above).[212][213] Popov accused the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee of trading the 1970s Détente for covering up the US Moon hoax and stopping the Soviet Moon programme.[214]

Yuri Mukhin
Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin (b. 1949), Russian opposition politician, publicist, writer, engineer, metallurgist, manager, and inventor. Author of the books "The Moon affair of the USA" (2006)[215] and "A Moon affair" (2009),[84] and the film "Maximum lies and nonsense" (2010).[216] In his works, he examines the differences between the Soviet and US lunar soil found out by Western researchers, refutes the NASA defenders' arguments, and accuses the US government for plundering the taxpayers' money for the Moon programme. Mukhin states that the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee was blackmailed by the USA that if the USSR denounces the Moon hoax, the US will denounce the Soviet partocracy before his people, revealing that Khrushchev had killed Stalin and Beria


Moon Landings Hoax - WikiSpooks

obviously russian will say anything american on the moon is faked.
 
Why didn't we go back there and colonise ? Instead of spending loads on the space station.
Fascinating stories from both arguments


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top