Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 07:32 #41

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 07:39 #42

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
No dust or blast crater--
Your initial response to this may well be, “Well, duh! ... why shouldn't the surface of the Moon be undisturbed?”

Glad you asked. The answer is that the lunar modules were not placed upon the Moon by the hand of God. They had to actually land there. And in order for them to land there in one piece, they had to make use of powerful reverse-thrust rockets. If they hadn’t, they would have made landings roughly comparable to a piano falling off the balcony of a high-rise apartment building.

“But,” you say, “isn't the gravitational pull of the Moon considerably less than that of the Earth?” Of course it is, but that does not render objects weightless. A vehicle with a curb weight of 33,000 pounds here on Earth (what the lunar modules weighed, according to NASA) still weighs close to three tons on the Moon, so it’s not going to make a very soft landing without assistance. And the assistance options were necessarily limited.



NASA could not have used parachutes, such as were used with the returning command modules, because parachutes don’t really work without air, so that would have been a dead giveaway that the landings were faked. They also couldn’t use a helicopter-type rotor, because those also don’t work in an environment devoid of atmosphere. What they allegedly used then to provide the necessary ‘brakes’ was a powerful, reverse-thrust rocket engine.



That is why, in the artist renderings of the landings (the landings obviously couldn’t be filmed, because no one was supposed to be there yet), an enormous blast of flame and hot gas is seen shooting out of the bottom of the module. This massive reverse force would have served to counteract the effects of the Moon's gravitational pull, allowing the module to gently set down in the lunar dust, unharmed and intact. And needless to say, that is kind of important when that very same vehicle is your only ride home.



The ‘debunkers,’ by the way, like to pretend as if the hoax theorists made those artist renderings up themselves, as if to say, “Hey, look over here! I just made up this drawing of what I think the landings should look like and NASA’s landings looked nothing like my drawing!” The reality though is that NASA’s own artists provided those images, based on the way that NASA claimed the modules would perform. What the ‘debunkers’ are telling you, in other words, is that NASA didn’t really understand how their own technology was supposed to work.



Given the manner in which the modules allegedly landed, the problem here is that – unless the landing surface was paved with, say, concrete – an inordinate amount of material should have been displaced by the force of the rocket blast as the module was setting down. As Plait likes to say, you can easily verify this yourself. All you have to do is get hold of a rocket with 10,000 pounds of thrust (there probably are some surviving members of the von Braun clan that can hook you up), and head out to the nearest desert location.



Once you find a suitable spot to conduct this experiment, hold the rocket aloft (you might want to wear gloves and an asbestos suit for this part, but it’s up to you) and fire that son-of-a-bitch up, directing the blast towards the desert floor (it might also be a good idea to grab on to a stationary object with your free hand and hold on real tight). Let it rip for whatever you think would be a reasonable amount of time to complete a landing procedure, and then shut it off.



If you've done this correctly, the result will be a fairly large crater and a blinding dust storm. That dust will, of course, eventually settle, leaving a heavy coating of dust on you and your rocket. You may also notice that the blast has lent the desert floor a distinctive scorched look. If you run the experiment for too long, you may even find that the intense heat has fused the cratered sand into something resembling a large bowl of glass.



The point here, of course, is that nothing of the sort is evident in the pictures allegedly brought back from the Moon. The lunar surface is, as noted, completely undisturbed and the modules are as clean as if they had just rolled off the assembly line. It appears as though they did not land at all, but were rather set in place with a crane or other such device. And of course we all know that there were very few crane operators on the Moon in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s.



How then did the modules get there? Could it be that the lunar surface was so compact that even the considerable force of the rocket could not dislodge it? That might be a credible explanation were it not for the fact that the astronauts themselves, who with the Moon's reduced gravitational pull weighed in at about 30 pounds apiece (maybe 60 pounds each with the additional alleged weight of their packs), made readily identifiable footprints from the moment their feet hit the ground. It appeared, in fact, as though the lunar soil had roughly the same consistency as baby powder. And yet, amazingly enough, not a single grain of this soil seems to have been displaced by the landing of the modules.



The ‘debunkers,’ naturally enough, have an explanation for this. According to them, it’s all about throttle control. As Plait explains, “Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn’t need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.”



Plait also notes that originally on his site he had said “that the engines also cut off early, before the moment of touchdown, to prevent dust from getting blown around and disturbing the Astronauts’ view of the surface. This was an incorrect assertion.” The funny thing is though that he voiced that “incorrect assertion” just as forcefully and as arrogantly as he voices all the other assertions on his page – which makes sense, I guess, since everything else on his page is incorrect as well.

Phil has obviously never landed a lunar module. Or given much thought to how you would go about doing so. Actually, that’s probably not true. Phil is most likely just a shameless liar. Not a particularly good one, mind you, but you have to remember that he is working with a handicap – he has to weave all of his ‘debunking’ arguments around NASA’s lies.

Let’s try to inject a little sanity into this discussion, shall we? First of all, no one with an ounce of common sense is going to cut the engine and let their three-ton spaceship simply drop onto the lunar surface. Nor are they going to cruise on in while progressively easing up on the throttle, effortlessly setting the module down, as Plait claims, like “a car pulls into a parking spot,” as if they had been landing lunar modules since the day they were born. Because the reality is that the six astronauts who allegedly landed the six lunar modules hadn’t done it before and they only had one chance to get it right.

And do you know why, Phil? Because that module was their only ride home, and if they damaged it in any way, they weren’t going home. Ever. They weren’t going to do anything except die within days in the most desolate place imaginable. And that is why it is perfectly obvious that, if they had really gone to the Moon, they would not under any circumstances have landed the modules in either of the ways that Plait has suggested.

Has anyone ever seen a helicopter land? That is essentially how you would land a lunar module as well. The basic technique is to line yourself up with your landing site while hovering a fairly short distance above the ground (with the module, I presume, you would hold your position by utilizing those clusters of horns). Then, when you’re stabilized and lined up just where you want to be, you very slowly ease off the throttle so as to very gently set it down. And if you’ve never done it before, you’re definitely going to want to take your time.

And that is why there quite obviously should be blast craters under those lunar modules. That is why NASA itself indicated that there would be blast craters under the lunar modules. And that is also why it is fundamentally impossible for the modules to be as impeccably clean and dust-free as they are in all of NASA’s photos. And no amount of spinning from the ‘debunkers’ will ever explain that away.
www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo5.html
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 07:43 #43

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
The show goes on--

NASA’s Pathfinding Orion Rolls to Launch Pad, Hoisted atop Rocket for Maiden Blastoff

After years of effort, NASA’s pathfinding Orion spacecraft was rolled out to the launch pad early this morning, Wednesday, Nov. 12, and hoisted atop the rocket that will blast it to space on its history making maiden test flight in December.

Orion’s penultimate journey began late Tuesday, when the spacecraft was moved 22 miles on a wheeled transporter from the Kennedy Space Center assembly site to the Cape Canaveral launch site at pad 37 for an eight hour ride.

www.universetoday.com/116205/nasas-pathfinding-orion-rolls-to-launch-pad-hoisted-atop-rocket-for-maiden-blastoff/
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 07:48 #44

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Search for clues in cosmic dust

DateNovember 18, 2014 - 12:00AM
It's difficult to imagine, but tiny specks of cosmic dust hold important clues to nothing less than the evolution of our solar system. There is a catch, though. The precious particles – collected during NASA's 1999 Stardust mission to the comet Wild 2 – are trapped inside a special silica aerogel. How to retrieve them safely?


Read more: www.smh.com.au/national/search-for-clues-in-cosmic-dust-20141113-11l6hp.html#ixzz3JP7enfPg
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 07:52 #45

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Are Cosmic Rays Causing Toyota's 'Sudden Acceleration' Problem?


Although this might sound like an “out there” theory, federal regulators are now investigating whether this ‘sudden acceleration’ is being triggered by high energy particles from space.

Mars Attacks

Cosmic rays are known to impact our atmosphere and we know they can damage sensitive electronics in space.
news.discovery.com/space/are-cosmic-rays-causing-toyotas-sudden-acceleration-problem.htm

And NASA has told tall tales about bolting past the earth's magnotsphere and a little magic mylar and ablative shiedling was all that was allegedly needed to protect the spacecraft and crew of the fabled Apollo moon missions.

Pfff...those kidders at NASA.!
Go figure. :hahano:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 07:57 #46

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Can astronauts safely go to Mars? Cosmic ray risk increasing.
If the sun is entering a prolonged period where sunspot activity is considerably weaker, the radiation hazard from cosmic rays is likely to increase further. A new study looks at the risks for astronauts going to the moon, Mars, and other destinations.

www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/1022/Can-astronauts-safely-go-to-Mars-Cosmic-ray-risk-increasing
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 08:06 #47

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Busy with moonsets on earth and holograms,robotics,geoengineering,mind control,space weaponization,and whatnot,NASA let';s the kids try to tackle the rest--

Youngsters crazy about robotics get started with NASA
Organized in five different teams, youngsters between ages 12-18 had to tackle the challenges set for them at each stage: to create a water filter, a heat shield able to deflect the heat radiated by a spacecraft, and a robot capable of exploring the surface of Mars and collecting rock samples.

After the final test - building a rocketship that can make a parachute landing
latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2014/11/17/youngsters-crazy-about-robotics-get-started-with-nasa/
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 08:08 #48

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
NASA Wildcat Aquatics is built upon the idea that swimming can be both fun and competitive at the same time. Our dedicated staff works together to obtain one common goal - success for every individual participant at every level. The foundation of our team produces strong, confident, and well-rounded athletes that are sure to make life-long memories in and out of the pool.
www.nasawild.org/Home.jsp?team=isnasa
Huh..no wonder the moon trips are pushed back over and over again. :roll:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 08:11 #49

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
NASA's Crazy Awesome Rocket-Propelled Parachute Test

news.discovery.com/space/nasas-crazy-awesome-rocket-propelled-parachute-test-140410.htm

If anyone dare asks NASA about Apollo or future space missions being done for real,they will just haul out the NASA Juggling Team. :joker:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 08:16 #50

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Apollo Fryup--
It's not a case of "Houston we have a problem", moreover "PAN's you have a very serious problem," namely 'delusions of grandeur'. Nothing new there, as I have been saying that for many years. However it's not me saying it this time, but non other than NASA, yes that's right NASA. Remember Dan Goldin's off the cuff remark to journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994, ie "Mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit until we can find a way to overcome deadly space radiation." Well 20 years later it seems space radiation is still posing a major problem for space travel outside Earth orbit. Why?

Because NASA have produced a 30 minute online video, in which NASA space scientists repeat the comments made by Dan Goldin many times over during the 30 minute video, albeit, "We cannot visit the Moon or Mars because of deadly radiation beyond the magnetosphere, (500 miles from Earth)". To put it another way in which PAN's might understand, "One cannot venture to the Moon and back, unless one wants to roast one's brain."

Do me, and everyone else a favor PAN's. When you go to bed tonight, repeat to yourself over and over again, "Deadly radiation 500 miles from Earth, Moon 250,000 miles from Earth", or, as the woman in the NASA video quotes, "280,000 miles from Earth". Seems even NASA don't know how far away the Moon is, so much for the so called laser reflectors supposedly left on the Moon by astronauts.

In the meantime, if NASA claim to have sent astronauts to the Moon in the 1960's, then over 45 years later they produce a video explaining that astronauts cannot leave Earth orbit due to deadly space radiation, do they not realize just how ridiculous and stupid they make themselves look to the rest of the world?

RECIPE: Roasted astroNOTS.

Place astroNOTS on level baking tray inside LM, (no need to pre heat). Launch LM deep into space. Set timer for 302 hours and microwave on full power, (in this case about 100 Million Watts), until golden brown and crisp.

The NASA online video is entitled "Bringing the Future into Focus", and is probably the only ever truthful video from NASA. To view the online video, click (Episode 25). Personally I think NASA should produce a video of how they faked all the Apollo Moon missions and call it "Bringing the Past into Focus", before looking to the future.

There are more and more NASA websites appearing in which they blatantly state that space travel beyond the magnetosphere, (low-Earth orbit), is a no go. Here is a statement from science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/24jun_electrostatics/

NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. Astronauts en route to the Moon and Mars are going to be exposed to this radiation, increasing their risk of getting cancer and other maladies. Finding a good shield is important.

Finding a good shield is important is it? Well, how about using that same good shield that Apollo astronauts used en route to the Moon back in 1968? What's that NASA you've forgotten how to make it?

It is truly unbelievable how, on the one hand, NASA claim that space travel beyond the magnetosphere is a complete no go, yet on the other hand they claim it wasn't a problem 45 years ago during the Apollo era.
apollofryup.atspace.co.uk/
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 08:21 #51

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
The space boys knew the truth--

Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 08:26 #52

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
"Once on the Moon, on the lunar surface in the dress, in the life support system, you couldn't see the camera. They couldn't bend their head that far down to see the scale ... They had no viewfinder - they had to aim by moving their body."

Jan Lundberg, chief designer of the Hasselblad cameras allegedly used by the Apollo astronauts
:wissl:


"They had to effectively guess where they were pointing the camera."
HJP Arnold, the Kodak executive who supplied the Ektachrome film for the missions
:ponda:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 08:28 #53

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”

Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon
:O

:cool:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 08:32 #54

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 08:33 #55

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 08:38 #56

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Antarctic Meteorites

NASA and the Smithsonian Institution, as experts in curation of lunar samples and geologic specimens, respectively, provide for the classification, storage and distribution of Antarctic meteorites.
curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/index.cfm
:D
:cool:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 18 Nov 2014 08:42 #57

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 04:49 #58

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Caltech Employee Lawsuit Involves Her Cat and an Israeli Spy
"Sandra Troian alleges Caltech administrators ignored the school's whistleblower policy and retaliated against her for the past four years because if they had documented her concern, they could have put an $8 billion contract with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at risk and put the school in a bad light. Troian said she is frightened for her career. ...

... "In a statement issued late Thursday, Caltech called Troian's lawsuit meritless and said the institution always abides by export control laws and ITAR. It also regularly cooperates with government agencies such as the FBI, the statement said. "The plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the outcome of a recent internal campus investigation into her decision to list her cat as the author of a published abstract and omit recognition of a postdoctoral scholar who performed related research, suffered no retaliation and remains an active faculty member of the institution," the Caltech statement said
nasawatch.com/archives/2014/11/caltech-employe.html
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 04:59 #59

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
New NASA moon patch and its synchronystic significance


The new NASA moon mission patch again gives us much occult and synchromystic (my new word for meaningful coincidence with mystical connotation) material to investigate. If you're ready, let's go!

Firstly the obvious triangular design gives us the sacred number 3, repeated in the 3 stars of Orion's belt and the also reminds us of a pyramid.

thebravenewworldorder.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-nasa-moon-patch-and-its.html
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 05:01 #60

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Earth's Magnetosphere--
Last Edit: 19 Nov 2014 05:05 by zax.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 278 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 160 - Raised
( £ 130 GBP )
donation thermometer
47%
Updated
2nd October 2019

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.