If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...
(John Beadles) wrote in message om... (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message Thanks, although I think I have seen this image before. It is not detailed enough for any pro or contra judgement. Additionaly this data does not contradict to my theory that US did send and soft landed a sort of automatic probe equipped with TV rebroadcaster to show overexcited US public the "moon" pictures from an earth studio. Although clearly given level of that time technology this achiement by itself was, no doubts, a huge success. Michael I'm curious about this mythical automated probe that could have taken the place of the Apollo LEMs. Since *EVERY* launch in that time period has been publically identified (the US having no capability to launch heavy boosters in any form of secret fashion), And why is that? You have little respect to USA. To the contrary, I simply have sufficient knowledge of the american countryside and space program to know that there was no way to perform space launches that big such no hint of them has leaked out in 40 years. Even the Soviets couldn't pull that off from Pletsetsk. In the US there were and still are) only a limited number of launch facilities that can process launch vehicles of that size, all surrounded by populated areas. The US was and is sufficiently populated that any launch from a remote area could not be hidden. It might be conceivably possible to build a remote launch pad outside the country (not for a Saturn V), but then you still have to get the launch vehicle in the country, and those aren't available on every street corner. where could such an automated probe have come from? No idea. What was it launched on? Obviousely on Saturn V How could this be even conceivably possible? The launch vehicle stacking and checkout procedures were not military secrets. There were innumerable technicians involved, and yet no hint of the security measures that would be necessary to install, test and fly the mythical lander without the secret leaking out immediately. Also there is no hint of the hardware adaptations that would be necessary to fit such a lander to the spacecraft. When was it launched? A good question. I do not know. There were several official NASA automatic and "manned" Moon missions. In fact one successful landing of automatic probe with rebroadcaster was enough to for the Appolo program. BTW this explains rate of success for Appolo missions. Given Appolo 13 was a sort intertaining TV program the rate of success was 100%. If they had to land rebroadcaster every time there would be much less than that. Yes, there were several such missions, but I fail to see how one such successful one would have sufficed to fake the rest. How could this be done? Please give me some detail so we can look for fingerprints of it actually happening. What was it? Personally I think it was something based on Surveyor design. No doubt. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Pete" wrote in message ...
"Geoff Cashman" wrote Michael, No matter how much evidence is provided to you, you would insist the sky is not blue. You can say radiation would have prevented astronauts from going to the moon. Yet, *huge* amounts of evidence indicate otherwise. Do you have *ANY* evidence at all that the U.S. did not in fact land men on the moon? You asked the question wrong. Of course he has 'evidence'. It should have been asked: "Do you have any *credible* evidence at all that the U.S. did not in fact land men on the moon?"..." Pete No, it should have been asked: "Do you have any *credible for Pete* evidence at all that the U.S. did not in fact land men on the moon?"..." The answer is no nobody can have it. Right? Tell us what kind of hypotetical evidence you would accept as credible enough. Just curiosity. Michael |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Petukhov wrote:
I would send Radio/TV signal in the way: Huston - Studio in Nevada - Moon rebroadcaster - Huston would that be John or Angelica? redc1c4, and how would the signal get through your tin foil hat? %-) -- "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Petukhov" wrote You asked the question wrong. Of course he has 'evidence'. It should have been asked: "Do you have any *credible* evidence at all that the U.S. did not in fact land men on the moon?"..." Pete No, it should have been asked: "Do you have any *credible for Pete* evidence at all that the U.S. did not in fact land men on the moon?"..." The answer is no nobody can have it. Right? Tell us what kind of hypotetical evidence you would accept as credible enough. Just curiosity. ok...I'll play.. Just a few, in no particular order: 1. Memos outlining (or even hinting at) the coverup. 2. Unambiguous pictures (and location) of the 'fake moon' soundstage. 3. Timed telemetry data, outlining a non-delay in signal. 4. Verified (lie detector?) interviews with 1 member of this coverup. 5. Analysis of the 'fake moon rocks', showing they are not of lunar origin. 6. Location of (pictures would help) the mythical alternate Saturn V launch site you mention. 7. Why the fUSSR did not (has not) brought this coverup into the fore. 8. Analysis of the radiation aspect, and why shielding could or could not have mattered, and why or why not the Apollo craft could not have been shielded enough to ensure survival. (Simply saying "the technology wasn't good enough" is not enough. Rad levels aloft, time, then-current material science all must be included in this analysis). 9. Finally, a detailed analysis of why it *could not* have been done with the technology of the era. Please include all aspects of the flight. More detail is better. Things along that line. Easy stuff. You'll have at least a couple of those right away, correct? Pete |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Petukhov wrote:
[...] The funny side that even time delays would be just fine not to speak that the signal does come from the moon. The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world. Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush me on? Right? Little naive boy... So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think that this was faked at all? -george william herbert |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Jarg" wrote in message ...
Comrade, superior Russian technology will make what has previously been impossible a reality, and the great Russian (and Indian) people will be the first to truly visit the moon! Freeze dried Tandori and Borscht - yummy! Russia will visit nothing but America's moon dust. Since Superior American tehnology is going to visit Mars and the black holes circling Jupiter. We don't mess around with has-beens using Chinese year-of-the-dog automobiles. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...
(John Beadles) wrote in message . com... ...skipped I hope you can forgive me for skipping lots of nonrelated crap above When was it launched? A good question. I do not know. There were several official NASA automatic and "manned" Moon missions. In fact one successful landing of automatic probe with rebroadcaster was enough to for the Appolo program. BTW this explains rate of success for Appolo missions. Given Appolo 13 was a sort intertaining TV program the rate of success was 100%. If they had to land rebroadcaster every time there would be much less than that. Yes, there were several such missions, but I fail to see how one such successful one would have sufficed to fake the rest. How could this be done? Please give me some detail so we can look for fingerprints of it actually happening. Kidding? How I can give you details? I can give you a prompt only. I would send Radio/TV signal in the way: Huston - Studio in Nevada - Moon rebroadcaster - Huston The funny side that even time delays would be just fine not to speak that the signal does come from the moon. The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world. Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush me on? Right? Little naive boy... Ambush you? Not at all. Rather, it's part of a pet project of mine. I've been reviewing the arguments of the "Moon landings were a hoax" proponents and have identified a general trend. The trend is that they are willing to disregard or misrepresent the available evidence in favor of the landings, but are totally unable to present ANY evidence supporting their own theories. A moon hoax proponent with a valid argument should be able to show positive proof showing how the hoax was executed. I was curious to see if you were going to have anything original, but no, no luck. In any case, this particular example is directly falsifiable in that forign nationals were able to track the spacecraft in flight, and signals heard from the vicinity of the moon were doppler shifted, not possible with a stationary transmitter. A previously landed moon probe would not have been sufficient. See http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/...7/APOLLO17.htm for an example. It is also easy to show that the responses between the flight crew and ground control did not show the time delay that would be present if there was a voice relay from the ground to the moon and back. If the signal were the result of a recording from a lunar bound lander, the ground controllers would have had to have previously prepared scripts, therefor all the ground controllers would have had to be in on it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|