Moon landing - Page 4 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Moon landing
Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1:26 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Wade Jarvis wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

I'll have one when the Republicans have a solution for the health care system or anything for that matter.


But why would we trust the government to do anything when they still have not fixed social security?

Good point indeed.
And that's another point that government could not achieve the goal of going/landing/launching to the moon and coming back safely. Government can not do anything right, at least that's what most of you are telling me, or am I wrong?




id say that responce would prove we did go. because if the goverment faked the moon landing, they would have screwed it up like everything else and it we have been proved we didnt go and then you also kinda made the point there about how uneficient it is to transport the shuttle like the picture you showed. which we all know the goverment doesn't do anything cheaply.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Re: Moon landing
Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:07 PM on j-body.org
Kevin, I think they passed your posts got over looked..... something about truth not being accepted here...



Chris



"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Moon landing
Wednesday, August 05, 2009 5:47 PM on j-body.org
yeah, the mouth breathers always fog up the windows to the outside world.





Re: Moon landing
Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:53 PM on j-body.org
All that GPS stuff makes sense assuming the satellites are calibrated to know how far they are off from the rotation of the earth.... hence know where they are in correlation to something like a map.

The one thing that doesn't make sense though is that they Triangulate where you are..... in order to triangulate something... the thing you are trying to find needs to be putting out a signal.... GPS systems in cars are receive only... they dont send info to the satellites..

This also means the only way the government could lock out all civilian GPS use is if civilian and government GPS systems run on 2 completely different signals from the satellites.... and they just turn one signal off.... also if they ever did that..... the Airlines would scream bloody murder since thousands of Airliners across the country suddenly lost their primary navigation system mid flight.

And thats just american owned sats....

As for the whole "energy = mass X the speed of light to the second power" stuff.... I still have some issues with that... I understand it (well I understood it... I need to re read some stuff I forgot).... I just dont agree with some of it.

As for the landing on the moon stuff...

I say its about 50/50....

We defiantly had the ability to fake what we saw at the time.... and no one has offered proof that we did go (this reflection crap is a BS joke).....

I'm not saying we did and Im not saying we didn't but the only way I will believe that we did for sure.... is if I can get my hands on a powerful enough telescope and see the landing prints and flag on the moon with my own eyes.
We have telescopes powerful enough to do that... so why arnt there pictures of that? although I would still have to see myself.

Im not taking sides... because I dont know either way.... but I was in the military too .... and I also know how untrustworthy and evil our government really is or at least can be.

So I dont trust anything until I know 100% for myself.





Re: Moon landing
Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:05 AM on j-body.org
Weebel wrote:

and I also know how untrustworthy and evil our government really is or at least can be.

But you have to remember that other countries have the ability to prove us wrong if we didn't go there. They would have done so some time ago if it weren't true. That's what I mean when I say the size of the conspiracy would be insane. You would have to believe that all of the major countries of the world, even those who have been adversaries, are part of a conspiracy to show that Americans achieved something no one else has. The motivations for them to do so would make no sense.
Weebel wrote:

So I dont trust anything until I know 100% for myself.

So fly up there and check it out for yourself.





Re: Moon landing
Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:27 AM on j-body.org
there are allot of things in this world that happen that i never see myself but im beleive they happen.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Moon landing
Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:53 PM on j-body.org
well, you're wrong on all your GPS points if you were trying to make any.

a GPS receiver does not need to put out a signal to the GPS satellite to know where it is. GPS receivers do not necessarily triangulate either. like i said, they use on average 9 or more satellites to determine your position. how it works is that a GPS satellite is broadcasting ephemeris data and telemetry. it's sending out a beacon that identifies it uniquely from the other satellites and the time according to it's atomic clock, at LEAST. so what happens is, your receiver has a list of the "names" of all 26 GPS satellites. that list identifies the orbital path that the satellites are travelling on. it also uses the time sent from the satellite's clock to determine where it actually is located in the sky; in relation to it's orbit, and from that can extrapolate where that particular satellite is sitting above the earth. a GPS receiver; no matter how expensive, is just a glorified calculator--a TI-83 with a map built in. there is actually a geometric formula that you can work out on paper to determine your location, if you are given the ephemeris of 4 satellites, orbital path, and what time the clock signals are broadcasting.

there was a time that GPS did not exist, and so pilots and sailors would have to rely on other forms of geometric formula. a compass; a sextant, the sun, moon, and stars--even the seasons (e.g. stonehenge) were all predicted using simple math. the denial of GPS was originally to be always implemented--it was never a matter of broadcasting two signals either. it's basically changing the "encryption" of the satellite signal; or rather, turning the encryption back on. the way it works is by using an algorithm to inject errors into it's time data. without that; it's useless to anyone who is not able to plug in a value for N in it's algorithm; where N is randomly generated from a specific KEY that only the US military and a few allies via proxy will have access to.

the way that GPS works is based solely in geometry (well ok, a little geography and astrology as well); but it's nothing NEW or groundbreaking--just a better implementation of the concept... heavenly bodies in orbit are predictable--the sun; for example, rises approximately every 23.5 hours... the stars appear the same locations on the same day in the sky days, weeks, years, decades, centuries...MILLENIUMS apart and are easily predicable--even before calculators (egyptian pyramids; aztec/mayan pyramids, stonehenge, etc) all of this possible by a little thing called:

MATH.

1972 - First GPS satellite test--a concept formulated completely on math
1978 - Last Lunar Walk--a concept, also, formulated completely on math

there is no need for a GPS receiver to navigate the world successfully. all it takes is a little knowledge and a little math. likewise; getting to the moon is HARDLY a challenge when you've got THOUSANDS of math geniuses figuring out your telemetry.

if you can see that your GPS receiver works--and you BELIEVE it to be accurate; because it DOES indeed locate you--realize that it is just basic and simple math. it was a concept that was implemented BEFORE the last lunar landing. it is NOT hard to accept that man at the time indeed had the technology AND the INTELLIGENCE to land on the moon.

those conspiracy theorists that can't accept that; are in actuality admitting that they cannot accept the fact that people--even ancient civilizations--were and ARE smarter than they are.

/thread.



Re: Moon landing
Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:59 PM on j-body.org
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:


those conspiracy theorists that can't accept that; are in actuality admitting that they cannot accept the fact that people--even ancient civilizations--were and ARE smarter than they are.

/thread.


This



Re: Moon landing
Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:00 PM on j-body.org
KevinP wrote:

if you can see that your GPS receiver works--and you BELIEVE it to be accurate; because it DOES indeed locate you--realize that it is just basic and simple math. it was a concept that was implemented BEFORE the last lunar landing. it is NOT hard to accept that man at the time indeed had the technology AND the INTELLIGENCE to land on the moon.


i should say, "man at the time indeed had the technology AND the INTELLIGENCE sufficient enough to land on the moon."





Re: Moon landing
Friday, August 07, 2009 12:24 PM on j-body.org
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:

KevinP wrote:

if you can see that your GPS receiver works--and you BELIEVE it to be accurate; because it DOES indeed locate you--realize that it is just basic and simple math. it was a concept that was implemented BEFORE the last lunar landing. it is NOT hard to accept that man at the time indeed had the technology AND the INTELLIGENCE to land on the moon.


i should say, "man at the time indeed had the technology AND the INTELLIGENCE sufficient enough to land on the moon."


Nobody or I should say I don't negate that man can land on the moon. The problem that I see with the technology that we use today and much less is in 1969 is incapable of getting to the moon AND back safely. Much how we send $hit to Mars and it stays there (granted on the distance), well that's as far our technology we can use today and much more likely in 1969. You have to use tremendous propulsion to get out of Earth and maintain speed through space as you travel thousands of miles an hour. Then when you are near the moon you need propulsion to not only slow you down, but to descend and then land there safely. After you tell the world "up yours" you have to use propultion to get out of the moon (yes, granted at 1/6 power but still need propulsion) you need propulsion to go up, then to pick up speed so you don't fall, power up to go through space to eventually crash on on Earth (not even land). This is what 1969 NASA told us.

This is why I say...
Quote:

Now the physics, I'm no genius at this, but I know the basics. I say we couldn't go to the moon, orbit the moon, land and return. Now the landing is the hard to believe part, ESPECIALLY the tin cans that we used (You really have to go NASA to see what I'm talking about). To reach and then land there safely takes lots of thrust power, something that the little capsule could not support. It is like having a SMART/TATA car with a LS9 engine and 100 gallon fuel cell what NASA was showing to get to the moon.



This is where I chime in and urge all the gullibe folks to go to NASA and look at the tin cans that they used. You will see the small capsule used. NASA told us that capsule has enough juice to take us back from the moon. The whole moon rocket is like looking at a to 2-litre bottle and the top is your capsule. You need the whole bottle/rocket to get of the moon, but that top is strong enough to land/take off safely, and carry you back safely to Earth.

This is why I say, we don't have the technology today and much less in 1969. The shuttle being transported by a 747 shows how dated we are. By 2009 we should be using self propeled planes that can get to space there with out the use of detachable rockets which have to be dump over the Atlantic and land in Texas or California get refilled and fly back to Florida with out being towed. Before you say that: thats to high tech! Well, small private company is did something similar (read the link I provided on this thread). Now with all the money and brain that NASA has, and we are still worried about a tile about the size of shoebox everytime the shuttle orbits the Earth?



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Moon landing
Friday, August 07, 2009 9:49 PM on j-body.org
So your saying the GPS triangulates its own location from the multiple Satellite signals.... that makes sense..... (I thought you meant it the other way around)
The point I was making (not trying to) was the same point you made..... just with a lot less words.... (was just a miss communication)

If I could fly to the moon and look for myself..... you can bet your ass I would have by now LOL

I'm pretty sure Russia challenged the authenticity of the moon landing..... but the thing is.... none of us Americans gives a damn what Russia thinks and we ignore them so even if they did prove we didnt go..... we would just pass thier "proof" off as fake.

I do have doubts that we could have really made it there with the technology we had back then.... but at the same time.... it's amazing that the shuttle can do what it can considering how crappy it really is.

Im not really saying I dont believe it because I cant see proof with my own eyes..... hell we probably did go there... im just saying thats the only way to remove 100% of all doubt for me.






Re: Moon landing
Saturday, August 08, 2009 7:34 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

You have to use tremendous propulsion to get out of Earth and maintain speed through space as you travel thousands of miles an hour. Then when you are near the moon you need propulsion to not only slow you down, but to descend and then land there safely. After you tell the world "up yours" you have to use propultion to get out of the moon (yes, granted at 1/6 power but still need propulsion) you need propulsion to go up, then to pick up speed so you don't fall, power up to go through space to eventually crash on on Earth (not even land). This is what 1969 NASA told us.

pretty sure there is no air and no resistance in space so if you are going 5000 mph near the Earth you will be going 5000 near the Moon with no fuel used. Satellites maintain their speed and position without the aid of boosters to keep up their speed. When satellites encounter the upper atmosphere, that's when things go wrong.

I still haven't heard anything from the conspiracy people on why Russia, China, or any other nation has not exposed our Moon landing as a fraud in 40 years. Surely they'd love to humiliate the U.S.?



Re: Moon landing
Saturday, August 08, 2009 8:27 PM on j-body.org
SPITfire wrote:

Quote:

You have to use tremendous propulsion to get out of Earth and maintain speed through space as you travel thousands of miles an hour.

pretty sure there is no air and no resistance in space so if you are going 5000 mph near the Earth you will be going 5000 near the Moon with no fuel used. Satellites maintain their speed and position without the aid of boosters to keep up their speed...

To add a little more clarity:

Once you're out of the atmosphere, there is virtually no drag due to no air, and you're also getting far enough up that gravity barely has an effect on you. As you get closer to the moon, you actually will have a very slight pull from it's gravity. The majority of the boost is only needed to escape our atmosphere.






Re: Moon landing
Saturday, August 08, 2009 9:44 PM on j-body.org
..... Of course.... I thought that was learned in Grade School.........


Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Moon landing
Sunday, August 09, 2009 3:19 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

still haven't heard anything from the conspiracy people on why Russia, China, or any other nation has not exposed our Moon landing as a fraud in 40 years. Surely they'd love to humiliate the U.S.?


I basically explained that int eh post directly above the one I just quoted from...

Im not really one of the conspiracy people though.... I'm just saying either argument could be right as far as I know...





Re: Moon landing
Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:27 PM on j-body.org
this whole thread makes my head hurt and makes me want to punch babies in a fit of rage
if you do not believe we have ever landed on the moon, you are an idiot
you are dumber than the 9-11 conspiracists and the Zeitgeist believers



Re: Moon landing
Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:40 PM on j-body.org
yes we did,without a doubt......funny story bout that whole deal though
my grandfather(now dead),went out and bought a brand spankin new color tv so that my father and his brother could see the landing in color......one little problem with that plan was it was shot in black and white.lol.



Re: Moon landing
Monday, August 10, 2009 1:56 PM on j-body.org
Weebel wrote:

Quote:

still haven't heard anything from the conspiracy people on why Russia, China, or any other nation has not exposed our Moon landing as a fraud in 40 years. Surely they'd love to humiliate the U.S.?


I basically explained that int eh post directly above the one I just quoted from...

Im not really one of the conspiracy people though.... I'm just saying either argument could be right as far as I know...




just because we would try and blow it off doesnt mean we could. if they had proof it would be all over the place wether we chose to believe the proof. every conspiracy nutjob would bring up that russia or china whatever proved we didnt go. the information would be out there if they did, but its not. hell even information that is later negated by facts still damages peoples perceptions of an event. russia wouldnt go. oh well they wont believe us. they would sit there and bring it up over and over and over and throw it in our face time after time after time. but as far as i know its never been brought up. if it had been every conspiracy theorist would have that in their arsenal of why we didnt go. but none of them mention it.



and goodwrench, id like to hear your aerounautical degrees and studies that show you have the skills and knowledge to know if our technology was capable or not as opposed to going. "well i looked at it standing behind the ropes and it didnt look like it would make it"


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:51 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:


and goodwrench, id like to hear your aerounautical degrees and studies that show you have the skills and knowledge to know if our technology was capable or not as opposed to going. "well i looked at it standing behind the ropes and it didnt look like it would make it"

And that's just thing, I don't need a "aeronautical degrees" to figure out that from my view of "well i looked at it standing behind the ropes and it didnt look like it would make it." Because what NASA was/is saying is equivalent to a standard Chevy Cavalier was able to reach Mach-3 speed with a paltry LN2.

But if you or anybody wants believe that we landed (drive on the moon too) and came back safely here, by all means do so. For me, the pieces/technology that I saw and see today doesn't correlate to easily for me to believe so.

Oh well.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Moon landing
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:46 AM on j-body.org
but lacking the knowledge yourself would really hinder your ability to reason wether it could make it or not. kinda like if someone never saw a computer before and you sat there and told them. well it can do research on about anything you wanted, it can play games, its a calculater, a word process, but you didnt even know how to turn it on you'd just sit there and go. " its just a box. it doesnt do anything" without having the knowledge your just guessing at what something can and can't do. as an example. i remember the first time i came across carbon fiber. and im not talking the fake @!#$ on most cars. im talking a real carbon fiber piece, it was for a mountain bike, it was handles. and just looking at it and touching it it felt like it would just break in my hands, i thought there was no way something this fragile feeling and light would take my weight. riding it i felt like at any moment it was just going to shatter on me. but the things lasted longer then my other bars. my lack of knowledge at the time on carbon fiber in my mind i just assumed it could never hold up and would be weak and break. i thought there was no way it could hold up.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Moon landing
Monday, August 17, 2009 7:46 PM on j-body.org





Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:53 AM on j-body.org
Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 6:32 AM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

man that is to small to read. hurt my eyes trying.

Did you try clicking on the magnifying glass icon on the top left?





Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:15 AM on j-body.org
Re: Moon landing
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:46 PM on j-body.org
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search