What more proof is feasible to even obtain? You can see the unusual trails in the dust from the moon buggy, and even fainter disturbances that make a lot of sense as footprint trails. At some point, someone will get an orbiter close enough that we’ll see the trails from the footprints themselves in even greater detail, though they show up as faint disturbances in the dust in the current ones.
I’ll be honest, I’m not sure what more proof you need, considering we’re talking about the surface of the moon here. You’re not gonna find blood samples, DNA, hair fibres or skin cells out there. So where do you place your goal posts?
I’m hoping you’re joking. Pictures have been faked since forever. And the “original” film of the astronauts bouncing around on the surface of the moon… an entire film, not just a photo!.. has been shown to be a stage set piece.
I understand that it’s not easy for the masses to feel they could have been duped, but a few photographs at this point in history, including the 1950’s, is most certainly not definitive evidence of anything.
The possibility of a fake is significantly diminished by the fact that different countries with different space agencies run by different people with varying technology and agendas took the orbitals. It's why I mentioned it. But none of it matters unless you can tell me: where are the goal posts? What proof do you personally require?
There is clearly evidence of deceit, right in our faces. Now this series spells out the impossibility for manned moon landing. What more evidence do YOU need?
All evidence and files explaining the recordings of the mission have disappeared. Somehow “lost” the original. One must suspend disbelief to consider this legit.
False flags are not always war driven.
As far as other countries go, two things to keep in mind. They can be fooled just as much as the general public, and nations conspire and are controlled more than we know, and for far longer than many knew until quite recently. National sovereignty is largely an illusion at this point.
So here’s two images, one is from the NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, the other is from the South Korean Danuri probe, both imaging the 17 landing site (I chose 17 because the same features are visible clearly in both). These are unrelated agencies as far as I know. You can see the same tracks in the dust in both images.
A really big one is environmental regulations, the material they made the old Apollo heatshields from was really toxic and was being released into the atmosphere every time it was being used.
For obvious reasons laws and regulations have been passed in the last 50 years against the large release of airborne deadly toxins into the atmosphere, the same has applied to many fuel types and other parts on rockets, im a little over exaggerating but some of those fuels and chemicals used if they don't outright kill you will give you basically instant cancer. the whole thing is a lot more complicated but overall they used some pretty nasty chemicals which happened to have very good heat properties.
So with the newer ones they need to fine suitable replacements, but with everything those always act just a bit different and so things end up working out differently.
Its difficult because they have to find new materials to use, not because it was done better back then.”
It's certainly possible. The wiki page for AVCOAT claims it was reformulated in response to environmental legislation, but neither of the two sources it cites for the claim provide any relevant details.
If I understand it correctly, the new TPS for the Artemis/Orion project, based on the old Apollo technology (and supposedly improved), is unable to reach the performance needed for a high energy re entry like a return from Luna. Although the TPS worked 100% of the time in the Apollo missions.
Yes. It survived all the Apollo missions, and the more severe unmanned tests which proceeded it. And they are now using a “skip re-entry” which is an improvement over the “direct re-entry” used by Apollo.
Correct, skip reentry is as you describe. The peak pressures are offset but that isn’t because of the skip reentry, it’s because of the aerodynamic behavior and flight path of the vehicle. They all have this offset. Unmanned craft can spin to distribute it over a larger area but the G loads from this can be excessive for manned craft.
Computer models have their limits. The standard practice to create a “baseline” model of something you can physically test (or have already) then move onto simulating the problem you can’t physically test. My suspicion with the heat shields is there is a huge gap between what can be physically tested on the ground, and the actual environment of reentry from lunar return orbit. Additionally, turbulent flows are probably the most challenging behavior to model.
I will eventually get to the Van Allen belts. Researching Saturn V rockets right now. Apollo Detectives has an interesting episode on space radiation I plan to watch:
You found the origin of the Star Trek insignia
This is all interesting from an engineering perspective, but we can rule out the moon landing having been faked, by the fact that even South Korea was able to photograph the landing sites. You can even see some of the trails in the moon dust. Here’s a comparison I made between the NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and South Korea’s Danuri probe for the Apollo 17 site. https://universemagazine.com/en/south-korean-spacecraft-photographed-the-landing-sites-of-the-apollo-11-and-apollo-17-expeditions/
This doesn’t mean that anything that landed on the moon was manned, even if the photos are real
What more proof is feasible to even obtain? You can see the unusual trails in the dust from the moon buggy, and even fainter disturbances that make a lot of sense as footprint trails. At some point, someone will get an orbiter close enough that we’ll see the trails from the footprints themselves in even greater detail, though they show up as faint disturbances in the dust in the current ones.
I’ll be honest, I’m not sure what more proof you need, considering we’re talking about the surface of the moon here. You’re not gonna find blood samples, DNA, hair fibres or skin cells out there. So where do you place your goal posts?
I’m hoping you’re joking. Pictures have been faked since forever. And the “original” film of the astronauts bouncing around on the surface of the moon… an entire film, not just a photo!.. has been shown to be a stage set piece.
I understand that it’s not easy for the masses to feel they could have been duped, but a few photographs at this point in history, including the 1950’s, is most certainly not definitive evidence of anything.
The possibility of a fake is significantly diminished by the fact that different countries with different space agencies run by different people with varying technology and agendas took the orbitals. It's why I mentioned it. But none of it matters unless you can tell me: where are the goal posts? What proof do you personally require?
There is clearly evidence of deceit, right in our faces. Now this series spells out the impossibility for manned moon landing. What more evidence do YOU need?
All evidence and files explaining the recordings of the mission have disappeared. Somehow “lost” the original. One must suspend disbelief to consider this legit.
False flags are not always war driven.
As far as other countries go, two things to keep in mind. They can be fooled just as much as the general public, and nations conspire and are controlled more than we know, and for far longer than many knew until quite recently. National sovereignty is largely an illusion at this point.
you mean to say you find those pictures convincing?
Why wouldn't I?
can you please provide a link to one of those convincing images?
Here, I hope this works: https://imgur.com/a/64Dmtl5
So here’s two images, one is from the NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, the other is from the South Korean Danuri probe, both imaging the 17 landing site (I chose 17 because the same features are visible clearly in both). These are unrelated agencies as far as I know. You can see the same tracks in the dust in both images.
Here’s another of the Apollo 11 descent stage from the Indian Space Research Agency: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Chandrayaan-2_Apollo.jpg
thank you, but I must say I don’t find them very convincing. the one with the tracks I find almost insulting.
Alright my friend fair enough. Mind if I ask why?
Oh my apologies, I don't know where the image I pasted in went. I will when I get to my laptop
Is there a link to the video at the end?
Capricorn One.
Do you think this could be a materials issue? I'm thinking something like inability to use asbestos?
User “jeffgoldbum” on reddit explains:
“There are many reasons that can be pointed to.
A really big one is environmental regulations, the material they made the old Apollo heatshields from was really toxic and was being released into the atmosphere every time it was being used.
For obvious reasons laws and regulations have been passed in the last 50 years against the large release of airborne deadly toxins into the atmosphere, the same has applied to many fuel types and other parts on rockets, im a little over exaggerating but some of those fuels and chemicals used if they don't outright kill you will give you basically instant cancer. the whole thing is a lot more complicated but overall they used some pretty nasty chemicals which happened to have very good heat properties.
So with the newer ones they need to fine suitable replacements, but with everything those always act just a bit different and so things end up working out differently.
Its difficult because they have to find new materials to use, not because it was done better back then.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1cnyp69/comment/l3awz0i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
It's certainly possible. The wiki page for AVCOAT claims it was reformulated in response to environmental legislation, but neither of the two sources it cites for the claim provide any relevant details.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCOAT
If I understand it correctly, the new TPS for the Artemis/Orion project, based on the old Apollo technology (and supposedly improved), is unable to reach the performance needed for a high energy re entry like a return from Luna. Although the TPS worked 100% of the time in the Apollo missions.
Yes. It survived all the Apollo missions, and the more severe unmanned tests which proceeded it. And they are now using a “skip re-entry” which is an improvement over the “direct re-entry” used by Apollo.
May I say that this sounds suspicious?
Correct, skip reentry is as you describe. The peak pressures are offset but that isn’t because of the skip reentry, it’s because of the aerodynamic behavior and flight path of the vehicle. They all have this offset. Unmanned craft can spin to distribute it over a larger area but the G loads from this can be excessive for manned craft.
Computer models have their limits. The standard practice to create a “baseline” model of something you can physically test (or have already) then move onto simulating the problem you can’t physically test. My suspicion with the heat shields is there is a huge gap between what can be physically tested on the ground, and the actual environment of reentry from lunar return orbit. Additionally, turbulent flows are probably the most challenging behavior to model.
I will eventually get to the Van Allen belts. Researching Saturn V rockets right now. Apollo Detectives has an interesting episode on space radiation I plan to watch:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/aQL3hfoeBdN3