there was no moon landing .... discus

beorhthelm · Jan 20, 2012

colinz said:
It would have been a heavily compartmentalised operation, carried out on a 'need to know' basis, you'd be surprised at how few people would need to know that a hoax was being perpetrated.

so therefore every person outside the operation would have to be hoaxed. all the engineers and observers having to overlook anomolies, technical errors, false readings from instrumentation. who nobbled the Brits at Jodrell Bank to pretend they heard the signals, and more to the point who brought off the Russians at their facility. as someone pointed out, faking it would take more effort that landing on the moon...

[yt]P6MOnehCOUw[/yt]

colinz · Jan 20, 2012

brightn'ove said:
you do not need fuel to move in space, only momentum. the fuel you need is to launch from earth and from the moon, very little fuel is necessary for the majority of the journey.

How d'you work that one out, got any calculations, how objects can move with less resistance than when in the gravitational pull of the Earth's atmosphere.

Quagmire · Jan 20, 2012

I've been to the moon on many an occasion.

usually while on LSD.

Case Closed.

The Buttery Biscuit Base · Jan 20, 2012

Dominoid said:
Myth busters did a special on moon theories a few Weeks ago on discovery. it pretty much debunks all the conspiracy theories. Man landed on the moon, I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk

Unarguable proof!

colinz · Jan 20, 2012

beorhthelm said:
so therefore every person outside the operation would have to be hoaxed. all the engineers and observers having to overlook anomolies, technical errors, false readings from instrumentation. who nobbled the Brits at Jodrell Bank to pretend they heard the signals, and more to the point who brought off the Russians at their facility. as someone pointed out, faking it would take more effort that landing on the moon...

[yt]P6MOnehCOUw[/yt]

Visit the Space centre (mission control) in Houston, you'd be surprised how small the place is.

Got any info on the building of all the Appollo Rockets etc, inventories etc.

It's absurd to say it would be harder to fake it. All there is, just some dodgy footage of a bunch of men jumping up and down in space suits being replayed in slow motion, who end up being in a dinghy somewhere in the Pacific.

ShandyH · Jan 20, 2012

colinz said:
How d'you work that one out, got any calculations, how objects can move with less resistance than when in the gravitational pull of the Earth's atmosphere.

That's a bit unfair! That's doctorate maths isn't it? Shooting a rocket between two objects one orbiting the other rapidly and taking into account their gravitational pull (and the sun's)..... Easy peasy Einstein.

colinz · Jan 20, 2012

ShandyH said:
That's a bit unfair! That's doctorate maths isn't it? Shooting a rocket between two objects one orbiting the other rapidly and taking into account their gravitational pull (and the sun's)..... Easy peasy Einstein.

OK I'll make it easier for you. Divide the distance from the moon to the earth by the number of hours it took to get there & back, then at least there is an overall miles per hour figure to work on.

Then you can extrapolate how fast the astronots travelled through the Van Allen radiation belt, and the none gravitational pull of the earth's atmosphere.

brightn'ove · Jan 20, 2012

Newman-seagulls said:
Unarguable proof!

don't be ridiculous, that proof is far too good to be real!

/edit also its funded by nasa to cover up etc etc bullshit blah blah.

ShandyH · Jan 20, 2012

colinz said:
OK I'll make it easier for you. Divide the distance from the moon to the earth by the number of hours it took to get there & back, then at least there is an overall miles per hour figure to work on.

Then you can extrapolate how fast the astronots travelled through the Van Allen radiation belt, and the none gravitational pull of the earth's atmosphere.

How long did it take? Are you saying they got to escape velocity far too quickly?

brightn'ove · Jan 20, 2012

colinz said:
OK I'll make it easier for you. Divide the distance from the moon to the earth by the number of hours it took to get there & back, then at least there is an overall miles per hour figure to work on.

Then you can extrapolate how fast the astronots travelled through the Van Allen radiation belt, and the none gravitational pull of the earth's atmosphere.

how do you explain probes that we have sent to the far reaches of the solar system/ to mars? do they also need to have infinite amounts of fuel on board? no.

oh wait

let me guess

you dont believe they exist either?

The Buttery Biscuit Base · Jan 20, 2012

colinz said:
How d'you work that one out, got any calculations, how objects can move with less resistance than when in the gravitational pull of the Earth's atmosphere.

Its called Inertia! Newton worked that one out 400 years ago...

Inertia (inertia is a body's resistance to acceleration):

An object remains in rest, or remains at a constant speed, unless forces from outside are acting on it.
The ball in the experiments of Galilei was continuously influenced by the same force (its weight), resulting in the acceleration. Newton's conclusion from this was that the actual influence of the force was a continuous changing in speed of the ball, and not that the force was only put the ball in motion. Acceleration (and deceleration) seemed to be caused only by a force. This also meant that a body without influence of a certain force would stay in a constant linear motion.

From this we can derive the following, concerning the motion of planets:
-to get an object in motion no forces are required,
-if the velocity of an object is accelerating or decelerating, than there is a force acting on the object, or if a force is acting on an object, without opposition, than the object must change in speed.

The Buttery Biscuit Base · Jan 20, 2012

colinz said:
OK I'll make it easier for you. Divide the distance from the moon to the earth by the number of hours it took to get there & back, then at least there is an overall miles per hour figure to work on.

Then you can extrapolate how fast the astronots travelled through the Van Allen radiation belt, and the none gravitational pull of the earth's atmosphere.

Earth Orbit: 17,500 mph
Trans Lunar Injection: 24,000 mph
Speed entering Lunar Gravitation Influence: 2,200 mph

pastafarian · Jan 20, 2012

colinz said:
To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! .

.

considering the space shuttle is designed to travel in low earth orbit its hardly surprising that it only goes "up" only a few hundred miles.

couple of figures for you that are conveniently omitted from that one sided piece,the shuttle discovery had 39 missions and traveled just short of 150,000,000 miles (yes thats million) enough to go to the moon and back 288 times

Upper Library · Jan 20, 2012

Putting all the technical arguments and theories to one side I aways come back to the fact that in my life time (I will be 40 next year) no one has set foot on the moon! Too expensive? Nothing there to warrant any more trips? But in every other aspect of human endevour during the last 40 years these barriers haven't held us back?

The shuttle was simply an expensive aircraft that flew very high in the sky. Same with the international space station.

Just seems to be a massive contradiction to all our other achievements during my life time........

The Buttery Biscuit Base · Jan 20, 2012

If he says so then it IS FACT!

One Love · Jan 21, 2012

That was easily the most incoherent I've ever seen Brian Cox.

Was he tired or drunk?

Shropshire Seagull · Jan 21, 2012

I love the way Van Allan Colinz picks and chooses which bits of physics to throw into his arguement and which he chooses to ignore.
I've been to Cape Canaveral to see the NASA site - those Saturn rockets were very very big. Recognise that a huge propotion of the fuel required, for Saturn or Shuttle is to climb enough height to break the earths gravity. Beyond that, there is minimal resistance so once high speed is achieved [within a few minutes] no power is required to sustain it. Short bursts for direction, and slow down were insignificant compared to lift off.

Anyway I was 8 when Neil said those now famous words. I saw and heard it on the telly box, so its true. No CGA in them days, just good old black and white BEEB. FACT !

And how does colinz think the Beagle probe made it all the way to Mars? Topped up at a Shell garage on the way? Or perhaps he thinks that's a conspiricy too?

1066familyman · Jan 21, 2012

Capricorn said:
In fact they should just host the olympics on the moon, that would be impressive.

That could be more popular than London...just imagine the pulling power of such an event !

beorhthelm · Jan 21, 2012

colinz said:
It's absurd to say it would be harder to fake it. All there is, just some dodgy footage of a bunch of men jumping up and down in space suits being replayed in slow motion, who end up being in a dinghy somewhere in the Pacific.

you are ignoring all the other bits. a bunch of men jumping around blies a great deal even in a fake film scenario, films take alot to produce. the rockets (cant fake them), the film crews, the fake data feed for mission control, moving the astronuats from Florida to the Pacific unnoticed, the fake moon rock sent off to laboratories around the world which they dont notice is really not extraterrestrial. all doable, but really, just put a man on the moon instead it will be easier.

The Buttery Biscuit Base · Jan 21, 2012

I think I've found Van Allen Collinz! It gets REALLY good after 5 minutes.

there was no moon landing .... discus

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Banned

New member

New member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

cringe

Well-known member

cringe

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Radio User

A. Virgo, Football Genius

New member

Share this page