COMEDY CENTRAL -- Man First Steps on the Moon -- NASA Hoax?????

In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

I saw their banks of greenish rack mount equipment, plenty of
transistors but almost no memory, no such thing as a hard drive ( all
ancient tape based ) and very few monitors

The tube based computers of the mid sixties ( they had to be made at
least a couple of years before launch) were humongous, had to be
refrigerated to keep the vacuum tubes cool, and were at best, weak.

If your friend developed transistor based computers for the Apollo
mission that's great but how good could they have been without a
modern operating system?
I remember my old "trash 80" computer ten years later having all of
the computing power of a modern wrist watch.

What a load of crap. Modern operating system? They weren't trying to
send e-mails and surf the Web. They had to make simple navigational
calculations and monitor the performance of onboard systems. Do you
believe we had nuclear submarines and military jets in the 60s? They
had similar functions and computers of their own. Do you suppose the
mysteries of the moon's motions were such that we couldn't calculate
them in the 60s? And of course the Apollo computers weren't
"tube-based", as I'm sure you could discover with a few minutes of
research. But you prefer to try to shoot down the whole endeavor with a
your idle, uninformed speculations.

Your "Trash 80" computer would have been capable of calculating a Lunar
trajectory if you had known what to do with it.

--
Joe Bergeron

www.joebergeron.com

On 2006-07-03 01:00:49 -0700, Seethis Pass said:

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:01:42 GMT, Joe Bergeron
wrote:

In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

On the other hand, If we went to the moon without any real computers
in 1969, Why is it so hard to do now with 37 years of further
technology and scientific advances behind us?
It would be a lot easier to fake it than to actually do it.


I'm not convinced either way as to whether we actually went to the
moon or not, but the government has an exceptionally poor record of
issuing the truth in their news releases.
They hold onto the truth and almost never mention it.

Do you think all we need is fast computers to make it easy to go to the
moon?

I think we probably can't do it even With fast computers.
There is too much problematic radiation from the sun.

Do you think materials have gotten that much lighter in that time?

Absolutely, Might I mention Kevlar for instance? The best they could
do in the sixties was aluminum and plastic though they had developed
the mighty transistor.

Have rocket propellants gotten any more energetic?

No but that point is on my side, Blasting ourselves all the way to the
moon it is so hard to do that it was probably faked. There is the 'new"
development of magnetically powered rail guns that
might well fire rockets without the explosion and with instant
re-charging for another launch. On board fuel wouldn't be needed until
Earth's gravity had been left behind, making the fuel part of the
problem much less problematic.

It has always seem especially ignorant that we find ourselves trying
to ---Blow Ourselves Off Of The Planet! --- with a rockets
explosive energy. It is simply not the best way.

Magnetic force is cheap when set up in a linear array of
electromagnetic rings, fired sequentially to launch a spacecraft, There
is no explosion that could get out of control.

'Rail guns' are the way to go.

Has engineering and testing advanced spacecraft become a low-cost enterprise?
Yes.
Computers are great at that, and they do make engineering and testing
a relatively low cost enterprise.

Our spacecraft are still made of Earthly materials and are still
powered by rockets. They're still crewed by fragile human beings. Those
37 years of advancements haven't amounted to much when it comes to
space transportation, any more than they've transformed cars or
airliners into anything better than fancier versions of what we had in
the 60s. It would be hugely expensive merely to duplicate the Apollo
hardware.

It would be hugely expensive and dumb as hell to duplicate 38 year old
technology.

I saw their banks of greenish rack mount equipment, plenty of
transistors but almost no memory, no such thing as a hard drive ( all
ancient tape based ) and very few monitors
The tube based computers of the mid sixties ( they had to be made at
least a couple of years before launch) were humongous, had to be
refrigerated to keep the vacuum tubes cool, and were at best, weak.

If your friend developed transistor based computers for the Apollo
mission that's great but how good could they have been without a
modern operating system?
I remember my old "trash 80" computer ten years later having all of
the computing power of a modern wrist watch.

All of the possible computing power they could muster in the early to
mid sixties would be less than what's found in a cheap hand held
electronic game today, I'd hate to try to get to the moon and back
with that.

NASA hopes to do something more ambitious than that. That
will be an extremely expensive enterprise, if it ever gets done at all.

Right If it Ever gets done at all.

In another of your replies, you mention the size of the moon set,
implying that it was too small.
If the government wanted to fake a moon landing, the size of the set
would not be much of an obstacle.

There is thought the problem you raise of Russia going along with the
hoax.That was your best point.
Exactly how would they know what had happened? Spy satellites? A
russian Hubble? Spies at the launch site? Someone on the moon to
report back?

Nah.
They had to get whatever they knew about it mostly second hand from us
and we lie.

Maybe we went to the moon in 1969 but it's more likely that we did
not.
The government lies are piled high and their credibility is very weak.
If they say something fantastic, consider it propaganda and you won't
often go wrong .

CHRIST STP, I thought you were smarter then this...

You don't need an OS to do what their computers did. Just memory... The
TTL logic circuits could do what was needed for calculating the math.
I'm assuming the data needed was in the form of a solid state device. I
don't know but I doubt any on-board tape was used...

We went to the moon. Plain and simple. The set you mention was just
that. A set to simulate a landing site on the ground to test equipment
and technique. NASA left nothing to chance. They still don't.
Everything is written down and in triplicate. It's a giant bureaucracy
with a CYA tool set. There is NO WAY a hoax could survive. tens of
thousands worked on Apollo, damn it.

Give them the respect they deserve.

also... Our disposable rocket set is limited. Nobody is going to
re-build a Saturn V. They're probably going to use two rockets on the
return mission. Lander and command module meet up in orbit with booster
mounted on the lander rocket most likely, but I don't know.

Moon return isn't Apollo and I'm sure there are many redesigns that
need to be made. Personally I think the manned mission is foolish but
if they Internationalize it maybe it would be a cool thing. It would go
back to being a political rather then scientific mission for its main
reasoning for it.



--
The PREMIER of "An Evening With a Rightard" Part one!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp4o_eHOKF8

On 2006-07-02 20:08:20 -0700, Joe Bergeron said:

In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

I've been to "Cape Canaveral" in the early 70's They weren't shy at all
about taking the tour passengers to see their
theatrical "moon' set,complete with lunar lander and space suits with
gold visors, where all they needed was cameras and a director to fake
the entire thing.

Wow, really? Their diorama was vast enough to encompass all the
landscapes explored by the Lunar Rovers in the last few missions? Holy
****, I had no idea it was that immense. Did you also see the rigging
necessary to simulate the Lunar gravity effects? Was the entire thing
covered in fine, clinging dust? And they had actual space suits? Wow,
where would NASA get space suits if they weren't fake???

JeeeeZZZZZZZZZZ.

I don't know where they get it. It really is an insult to THOUSANDS of
engineers and craftsman who put blood sweat and tears into doing
something that was impossible in our minds. They did it. Instead of
praise by all which they deserve, they get a damn hoax conspiracy BS
story.

Apollo was the triumph of science, art, imagination and most of all
engineering. It was a product of the renaissance/enlightenment.
We should be proud of how they put it to good use for a change instead
of killing people.

--
The PREMIER of "An Evening With a Rightard" Part one!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp4o_eHOKF8

On 2006-07-02 20:03:52 -0700, Joe Bergeron said:

In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

The motivation to fake it would be the cold war.

The Russians, noticing that our so-called Lunar missions went nowhere
near the moon, and that the astronaut transmissions did not originate
from the moon, would no doubt play along with our hoax, good sports
that they were.

Don't forget about bouncing laser light off of non-existent equipment
left by the non-existent Lunar missions...

--
The PREMIER of "An Evening With a Rightard" Part one!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp4o_eHOKF8

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:51:20 GMT, The PretZel
wrote:

On 2006-07-03 01:00:49 -0700, Seethis Pass said:

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:01:42 GMT, Joe Bergeron
wrote:

In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

On the other hand, If we went to the moon without any real computers
in 1969, Why is it so hard to do now with 37 years of further
technology and scientific advances behind us?
It would be a lot easier to fake it than to actually do it.


I'm not convinced either way as to whether we actually went to the
moon or not, but the government has an exceptionally poor record of
issuing the truth in their news releases.
They hold onto the truth and almost never mention it.

Do you think all we need is fast computers to make it easy to go to the
moon?

I think we probably can't do it even With fast computers.
There is too much problematic radiation from the sun.

Do you think materials have gotten that much lighter in that time?

Absolutely, Might I mention Kevlar for instance? The best they could
do in the sixties was aluminum and plastic though they had developed
the mighty transistor.

Have rocket propellants gotten any more energetic?

No but that point is on my side, Blasting ourselves all the way to the
moon it is so hard to do that it was probably faked. There is the 'new"
development of magnetically powered rail guns that
might well fire rockets without the explosion and with instant
re-charging for another launch. On board fuel wouldn't be needed until
Earth's gravity had been left behind, making the fuel part of the
problem much less problematic.

It has always seem especially ignorant that we find ourselves trying
to ---Blow Ourselves Off Of The Planet! --- with a rockets
explosive energy. It is simply not the best way.

Magnetic force is cheap when set up in a linear array of
electromagnetic rings, fired sequentially to launch a spacecraft, There
is no explosion that could get out of control.

'Rail guns' are the way to go.

Has engineering and testing advanced spacecraft become a low-cost enterprise?
Yes.
Computers are great at that, and they do make engineering and testing
a relatively low cost enterprise.

Our spacecraft are still made of Earthly materials and are still
powered by rockets. They're still crewed by fragile human beings. Those
37 years of advancements haven't amounted to much when it comes to
space transportation, any more than they've transformed cars or
airliners into anything better than fancier versions of what we had in
the 60s. It would be hugely expensive merely to duplicate the Apollo
hardware.

It would be hugely expensive and dumb as hell to duplicate 38 year old
technology.

I saw their banks of greenish rack mount equipment, plenty of
transistors but almost no memory, no such thing as a hard drive ( all
ancient tape based ) and very few monitors
The tube based computers of the mid sixties ( they had to be made at
least a couple of years before launch) were humongous, had to be
refrigerated to keep the vacuum tubes cool, and were at best, weak.

If your friend developed transistor based computers for the Apollo
mission that's great but how good could they have been without a
modern operating system?
I remember my old "trash 80" computer ten years later having all of
the computing power of a modern wrist watch.

All of the possible computing power they could muster in the early to
mid sixties would be less than what's found in a cheap hand held
electronic game today, I'd hate to try to get to the moon and back
with that.

NASA hopes to do something more ambitious than that. That
will be an extremely expensive enterprise, if it ever gets done at all.

Right If it Ever gets done at all.

In another of your replies, you mention the size of the moon set,
implying that it was too small.
If the government wanted to fake a moon landing, the size of the set
would not be much of an obstacle.

There is thought the problem you raise of Russia going along with the
hoax.That was your best point.
Exactly how would they know what had happened? Spy satellites? A
russian Hubble? Spies at the launch site? Someone on the moon to
report back?

Nah.
They had to get whatever they knew about it mostly second hand from us
and we lie.

Maybe we went to the moon in 1969 but it's more likely that we did
not.
The government lies are piled high and their credibility is very weak.
If they say something fantastic, consider it propaganda and you won't
often go wrong .

CHRIST STP, I thought you were smarter then this...


You don't need an OS to do what their computers did. Just memory...
Fine.

TTL logic circuits could do what was needed for calculating the math.
I'm assuming the data needed was in the form of a solid state device. I
don't know but I doubt any on-board tape was used...

Of course not, to bulky and un-necessary.

We went to the moon. Plain and simple.

The set you mention was just that. A set to simulate a landing site on the ground to test equipment
and technique. NASA left nothing to chance. They still don't.
Everything is written down and in triplicate. It's a giant bureaucracy
with a CYA tool set. There is NO WAY a hoax could survive. tens of
thousands worked on Apollo, damn it.

No one knows what happened once the launches were out of sight from
the ground. We have only the governments say and that is tainted to
the limit.

Give them the respect they deserve.

I did.

also... Our disposable rocket set is limited. Nobody is going to
re-build a Saturn V. They're probably going to use two rockets on the
return mission. Lander and command module meet up in orbit with booster
mounted on the lander rocket most likely, but I don't know.

Moon return isn't Apollo and I'm sure there are many redesigns that
need to be made. Personally I think the manned mission is foolish but
if they Internationalize it maybe it would be a cool thing. It would go
back to being a political rather then scientific mission for its main
reasoning for it.

Joe Bergeron wrote:
In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

On the other hand, If we went to the moon without any real computers
in 1969, Why is it so hard to do now with 37 years of further
technology and scientific advances behind us?
It would be a lot easier to fake it than to actually do it.

Do you think all we need is fast computers to make it easy to go to the
moon?
MASCONS and no momentum reaction wheels = really fast fly-by-rocket
computers and having those extremely well modulated reaction thrusters,
of demanding multiples of such thrusters going nearly continuousiously.
Yes you'd need one hell of a good set of computers and lots of spare
reaction thrusting fuel for the one-way ticket to ride since the gamma
and hard-X-ray environment would have summarily nailed each of their
DNA butts and of everything else attached.

Do you think materials have gotten that much lighter in that time? Have
rocket propellants gotten any more energetic? Has engineering and
testing advanced spacecraft become a low-cost enterprise?
Yes, Yes and relatively in equal dollars I'd have to say yes again.

Our spacecraft are still made of Earthly materials and are still
powered by rockets. They're still crewed by fragile human beings. Those
37 years of advancements haven't amounted to much when it comes to
space transportation, any more than they've transformed cars or
airliners into anything better than fancier versions of what we had in
the 60s. It would be hugely expensive merely to duplicate the Apollo
hardware. NASA hopes to do something more ambitious than that. That
will be an extremely expensive enterprise, if it ever gets done at all.

Others using far better rocket science, loads of better alloys and
nifty composites wherever possible, better first stage efficiency plus
terrific side boosters and having the most modern of internal and
ground support technology at every possible level, with all of that at
not nearly the inert mass which still can not even achieve GSO at 60:1,
much less deploy their payloads into lunar orbit.
-
Brad Guth

Seethis Pass wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:01:42 GMT, Joe Bergeron
wrote:

In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

On the other hand, If we went to the moon without any real computers
in 1969, Why is it so hard to do now with 37 years of further
technology and scientific advances behind us?
It would be a lot easier to fake it than to actually do it.


I'm not convinced either way as to whether we actually went to the
moon or not, but the government has an exceptionally poor record of
issuing the truth in their news releases.
They hold onto the truth and almost never mention it.

Do you think all we need is fast computers to make it easy to go to the
moon?

I think we probably can't do it even With fast computers.
There is too much problematic radiation from the sun.

Do you think materials have gotten that much lighter in that time?

Absolutely, Might I mention Kevlar for instance? The best they could
do in the sixties was aluminum and plastic though they had developed
the mighty transistor.

Have rocket propellants gotten any more energetic?

No but that point is on my side, Blasting ourselves all the way to the
moon it is so hard to do that it was probably faked.
There is the 'new" development of magnetically powered rail guns that
might well fire rockets without the explosion and with instant
re-charging for another launch. On board fuel wouldn't be needed until
Earth's gravity had been left behind, making the fuel part of the
problem much less problematic.

It has always seem especially ignorant that we find ourselves trying
to ---Blow Ourselves Off Of The Planet! --- with a rockets
explosive energy. It is simply not the best way.

Magnetic force is cheap when set up in a linear array of
electromagnetic rings, fired sequentially to launch a spacecraft,
There is no explosion that could get out of control.

'Rail guns' are the way to go.

Has engineering and testing advanced spacecraft become a low-cost enterprise?
Yes.
Computers are great at that, and they do make engineering and testing
a relatively low cost enterprise.

Our spacecraft are still made of Earthly materials and are still
powered by rockets. They're still crewed by fragile human beings. Those
37 years of advancements haven't amounted to much when it comes to
space transportation, any more than they've transformed cars or
airliners into anything better than fancier versions of what we had in
the 60s. It would be hugely expensive merely to duplicate the Apollo
hardware.

It would be hugely expensive and dumb as hell to duplicate 38 year old
technology.

I saw their banks of greenish rack mount equipment, plenty of
transistors but almost no memory, no such thing as a hard drive ( all
ancient tape based ) and very few monitors

The tube based computers of the mid sixties ( they had to be made at
least a couple of years before launch) were humongous, had to be
refrigerated to keep the vacuum tubes cool, and were at best, weak.

If your friend developed transistor based computers for the Apollo
mission that's great but how good could they have been without a
modern operating system?
I remember my old "trash 80" computer ten years later having all of
the computing power of a modern wrist watch.

All of the possible computing power they could muster in the early to
mid sixties would be less than what's found in a cheap hand held
electronic game today, I'd hate to try to get to the moon and back
with that.

NASA hopes to do something more ambitious than that. That
will be an extremely expensive enterprise, if it ever gets done at all.

Right If it Ever gets done at all.

In another of your replies, you mention the size of the moon set,
implying that it was too small.
If the government wanted to fake a moon landing, the size of the set
would not be much of an obstacle.

There is thought the problem you raise of Russia going along with the
hoax.That was your best point.
Exactly how would they know what had happened? Spy satellites? A
russian Hubble? Spies at the launch site? Someone on the moon to
report back?

Nah.
They had to get whatever they knew about it mostly second hand from us
and we lie.

Maybe we went to the moon in 1969 but it's more likely that we did
not.
The government lies are piled high and their credibility is very weak.
If they say something fantastic, consider it propaganda and you won't
often go wrong.

Our naked moon is existing much like a solid form of a Van Allen belt,
and lo and behold it's actually offering itself as more of being gamma
and hard-X-ray hot than the worse of any zone within our Van Allen
badlands that's offering upon average 23 rads/hr while being shielded
by 2 g/cm2 (5/16" of 5086 aluminum)...

In addition to all of that bad news, I, Kodak and the regular laws of
physics, plus other hard-science that's easily replicated, can prove
those NASA/Apollo EVA Kodak moments simply could not have transpired
upon that physically dark and nasty moon of ours.

BTW; The USSR was very much in on it, and for the same money and power
grubbing reasons as they were in on the perpetrated cold-war. Now
China is going to kick both of our sorry butts.
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:

Our naked moon is existing much like a solid form of a Van Allen belt,

Wrong.

and lo and behold it's actually offering itself as more of being gamma
and hard-X-ray hot than the worse of any zone within our Van Allen
badlands

Wrong.

that's offering upon average 23 rads/hr while being shielded
by 2 g/cm2 (5/16" of 5086 aluminum)...

Wrong.

In addition to all of that bad news, I, Kodak and the regular laws of
physics,

Liar.

plus other hard-science that's easily replicated, can prove
those NASA/Apollo EVA Kodak moments simply could not have transpired
upon that physically dark and nasty moon of ours.

Wrong.

BTW; The USSR was very much in on it, and for the same money and power
grubbing reasons as they were in on the perpetrated cold-war. Now
China is going to kick both of our sorry butts.

Are you now claiming to be a usenet psychic astrologer, Brad?

-
Brad Guth

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development

Matthew Ota wrote:
Ed Conrad wrote:


http://www.gaiaguys.net/moontruth.htm

Hmmm! I just wonder what a voice analysis test of Neil
Armstrong would reveal. We may be in for a shocking
surprise!

Ed Conrad


That video has been around for quite some time....but it is hard to
find. It was made in England by a space buff that was making a parody
of all of the looney moon landing hoax advocates. The real clue to the
buffonery is the last line in the video " Sorry Mr. Gorsky.."

from an also very obscure joke and urban legend:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mrgorsky.htm

You just have to love sophisticated inside humor like this....

There was a lot of discussion about this video at sci.space.history a
few years ago.

Matthew Ota

It only proves that anything can be made into looking exactly like
those phony baloney NASA/Apollo EVA images, and otherwise simulated in
order to have created whatever else you'd care to create.

There were dozens of ways and of easily doable alternative means that
would have easily proved our having walked on the moon. I wonder why
none of those were attempted, much less recorded on Kodak film?

Would you like to see a few of their their "BLUE SCREEN" oops shots?

Would you like to know what else has been that of NASA/Apollo lies?

You do realize that the vast majority of Apollo hoax contributions are
of those via their own moles? (isn't that exactly what you'd do?)
-
Brad Guth

hARDick, did you recieve new teachings... you sound just like Roger
from the other group...


Art Deco wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

Our naked moon is existing much like a solid form of a Van Allen belt,

Wrong.

and lo and behold it's actually offering itself as more of being gamma
and hard-X-ray hot than the worse of any zone within our Van Allen
badlands

Wrong.

that's offering upon average 23 rads/hr while being shielded
by 2 g/cm2 (5/16" of 5086 aluminum)...

Wrong.

In addition to all of that bad news, I, Kodak and the regular laws of
physics,

Liar.

plus other hard-science that's easily replicated, can prove
those NASA/Apollo EVA Kodak moments simply could not have transpired
upon that physically dark and nasty moon of ours.

Wrong.

BTW; The USSR was very much in on it, and for the same money and power
grubbing reasons as they were in on the perpetrated cold-war. Now
China is going to kick both of our sorry butts.

Are you now claiming to be a usenet psychic astrologer, Brad?

-
Brad Guth

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development