NASA Has the Lost Tapes

The real conspiracy is that they are conspiring to set up a fake conspiracy.

The moon landings were real but as long as you're distracted with the fake conspiracy you will not notice them conspiring to rob the banking system.

Of course it is suspect that it took so long to find the high definition tapes but that is the beauty of their conspiracy they want to thank that the moon landing conspiracy was really your idea.

I've got a go, just because I'm paranoid it doesn't they aren't following me.

It will be interesting to see if the improved video quality dispels any of the conspiracy theories.

However there really is a conspiracy I did the last post. And I didn't select the post anonymously BOX, dag nab it if I'm going to do a dumb post I'll own up to it.

They just didn't want you to know that I knew what the real conspiracy was, and if I disappeared nobody would be any the wiser. Now I really am paranoid.

I think that we should just submit it all to Mythbusters, and see if they can recreate a moon landing... then we will know for sure!

Chris writes: "I think that we should just submit it all to Mythbusters, and see if they can recreate a moon landing... then we will know for sure!"

Mythbusters is way ahead of you on this one, Mr. Chris:

<tongue planted firmly in cheek>

It seems their film crew actually were on their way to the Moon in a CM replica (courtesy of Virgin Records), but lost contact just before exiting Earth's magnetosphere. Seems they got a bit roasted by those Van Allen radiation belts we learned about in middle school. You know, those thick donut-shaped regions surrounding the Earth with high-energy ions and other really nasty crap that has a propensity to blast its way through flimsy, low-density stuff like CM hulls and live human beings? Not all of them make it into the craft, of course, so that makes us a little safer from ill effects, right? Wrong: on impact those bad boys dump their kinetic energy in the form of intense, hard X-rays that'll give the toughest Mr. Right-Stuff's internal organs a real nice, permanent tan in about as much time as it takes to say "Houston, we've got a problem."

In case you're curious, did you know that you can actually simulate the effects of a trip through the Van Allen belts in the comfort of your own planet? It's easy: go to the nearest hospital and locate their biggest and newest X-ray machine. Don't settle for anything less than 300 keV.

When you find one that really kicks butt, set it to max power, turn it on, pull up a chair and bask in its comforting rays for about twenty to thirty minutes or until you lose consciousness. You might want to bring a magazine to read while you can wait.

(Tip: take out extra life insurance before trying this experiment.)

Mythbusters should have stuck with the tried-and-true: quietly replicate the moon landings at a low-budget backwater studio preferably in or near Clear Lake, Texas, where NASA keeps most of its props ..er.. simulators. It worked for NASA and we believed it then, so why not believe it now?

hmmm... so you are saying that the faraday cage is only effective on certain energy levels of electromagnetic energy? I think I ran out of knowledge.. but it isn't what I was taught.

Hi Chris!

A Faraday cage is effective in shielding its contents from electric and electromagnetic fields and, in these terms, the CM puts up a pretty effective barrier. But this isn't what we're talking about here because E and EM fields aren't the problem.

The threat comes not from fields, but from charged particles moving at relativistic speeds. Some of these particles are so energetic that they can penetrate the hull of the CM about as easily as buckshot fired through tin foil. But the biggest problem by far is not with the particles that make it through, but with those that are suddenly stopped dead in their tracks. It's not the particle that's so much of a problem as it is with what that particle does with its energy upon impact.

Think about how an X-ray machine works. You've got a 'gun' (or, in the case of a well-funded research facility, a hoity-toity particle accelerator) that accelerates electrons to relativistic speeds and then slams them into a dense, metal target - usually tungsten. On impact these electrons must do something with all that kinetic energy, and so what do they do? They produce - you guessed it - X-rays! Not only, but the higher the particle energies, the shorter the wavelengths that are produced. Shorter wavelengths penetrate deeper into objects than longer ones. X-rays that have very short wavelengths are called "hard" X-rays (any shorter than that and the pundits call them gamma rays).

Hard X-rays are used, for example, to verify the contents of railroad cars without inspecting their contents directly. This comes in particularly handy when we want to peek 'inside' Ruskie nuke-carrying railroad cars to ensure that our dear friends remain in compliance with nuclear arms treaties, yet without taking a direct gander at the hardware itself. In this application the X-ray source is not a machine, but a lump of Cobalt-60 (several hundred Curies, in fact) tucked safely inside a massive casket of depleted uranium. Lead is just too "transparent" at these energies to be of much use. But for the majority of applications we use electrons to generate X-rays.

The Van Allen belts contain not only electrons, but relativistic ions. Atomic nuclei, mostly. Nuclei far more massive than electrons and, for a given speed, pack a gargantuan wallop. Imagine for a moment a humongous X-ray machine with the CM playing the role of 'target.' In the hostile, deadly environment of the Van Allen radiation belts, the CM's hull would have offered little protection from the lethal environment outside. At escape velocity, the CM spent approximately twenty minutes in each belt. This it did both going and coming back. One hundred sixty total minutes of lethal X-ray exposure over a span of a week or two and nary a thing to show for it.

Uh-huh.

If we actually did send men to the Moon, you can bet that every last one of 'em was fried by the time they got there. I simply don't believe we actually sent men to the Moon. We sent them not to the Moon, but to a film studio. And a shoddy one at that.

For any readers who are lucky enough to have a full copy of the original "live from the Moon" tV broadcasts, please keep your eye out for a Coke (yes, Coke) bottle kicked across the viewer's field of view by the astronaut emerging from the LEM's shadows on the right. All the American networks squelched it, but the Aussies took their sweet time (good for them!) and gave folks who had their own video recorders a crack at it. (Ampeg most likely. About $50k a pop in '69-'7x. Used 2-inch-wide reel-to-reel tape)

Also look at the Sun's reflection on some of the astronauts' faceplates. It's octagonal, like some studio lights that are used to simulate sunlight. On every other astronauts' faceplates on every single spacewalk, EVA or what have you, the Sun's reflection is a point - not a largish extended octagonal shape.

Also look for the brief glint of what looks to be wire about two feet above one bouncing astronaut's space-pack. None of the space-packs sport a wire there.

Also, would somebody please tell me where all that body heat generated by our hard-working, moon-walking astronauts goes? Is it stored in the space-pack by some kind of phase-change compound or something? That's a lot of heat to dispose of over an extended EVA, and it has to go somewhere.

Convection wouldn't work because the Moon hasn't an atmosphere.

Conduction is out, for obvious reasons.

I suppose the heat could be radiated into space by heatsink-like fins of some kind, but I don't see anything on those space-packs that even comes close.

Evaporative cooling might work. It would be really quite effective in space, if done right, provided that you didn't run out of 'coolant' (the stuff that does the actual evaporating) before returning to the spacecraft. I've wondered about this for some time, but I keep forgetting to mention it.

So, are there any CR4 folks with ideas about how waste body heat is removed from a spacesuit over several hours in a near-perfect vacuum?

well... you get really high marks for knowledge, language and presentation. GA. I must admit I have not been exposed to the information that you have presented... and I watch that tv show et al.

its hard to believe it wasn't real. when the expensive part was what we built here on the ground.

and did I mention I'm a big believer in Zecharia Sitchin, and the ancient gods, who left clay tablet stories of their adventures in space coming here? so we are not the only ones to venture into the van-allen belts.. there might be another answer.. (although I certainly don't know any of this stuff)

good luck.

Chris

PS...can you please post a screenshot of coke can image?

Hello Guest:

Impressive post, I may not agree with you however you have made some good points.

The fundamental question would be why fake a moon landing and why would some of the most reputable scientists of the 20th century have remained silent, if the mission was impossible from the beginning,or faked because of technical problems.

Occam's razor remains a valid test. Certainly the desire for funding and possibly personal recognition could easily persuade some scientist to look the other way.

However the verbiage to explain why all professionals could either be taken in or bought becomes unmanageable. Therefore the simplest and most likely explanation would be the moon landings were real.

During my childhood and through my adolescence I had the somewhat unique pleasure of having a aerospace engineer that was involved with the space program as a next-door neighbor.

It was not unusual for me to be privy to information before it hit the news. I can easily attest to his character, he was neither gullible or stupid and he never gave any inclination that the landings were faked.

Bingo! The fundamental question is one of motive.

Really, why would any government go to such lengths as to fake something of this magnitude? Why indeed? The answer to this question may be found in the dark political and social climate of the '60's and early '70's.

We were in the middle of the Cold War. And Viet Nam. There was social upheaval and our society was beginning to fall apart at the seams. Our boys were dying in 'Nam for a dubious cause, at best, and people were angry. We were demoralized and fearful. Not far from anyone's thoughts was the knowledge that we were never more than just few minutes away from thermonuclear oblivion.

By the early '60's the US and the former Soviet Union were entrenched in a terrifying race to build more and better nuclear weapons, delivery systems, surveillance and recon satellite technology, micro-miniaturized electronics, psychological warfare, intelligence and counter-intelligence, subterfuge, sabotage, misinformation, social engineering - you name it. It was a no-holds-barred race to the death and no expense was spared. In this climate you can quite easily imagine the unprecedented political, social and psychological benefits of being the first superpower to put a man on the Moon. With Sputnik the Soviet Union slapped us hard in the face and now it was payback time writ large.

Bringing the Space Program to the fore was a stroke of pure genius. It elegantly solved so many problems: For one thing, the Program allowed us to proceed full-tilt with technology development right under the Soviet Union's nose without their becoming suspicious; technology easily transferred to other domains. Weapons development, for instance. And delivery systems, satellite technology, micro-miniaturization...

The Space Program had a very important social payoff. After all, it was a Noble Goal to be the first nation to put a man on the Moon, wasn't it? The Program had a unifying effect on our country that diverted our focus on death and destruction and served to remind us that humanity was also capable of Great Things, too. We'd nearly forgotten that.

The Space Program represented a huge windfall for government contractors, many of whom were already making a fortune from our involvement in Viet Nam. This, of course, helped the economy and kept people off the streets where, in the 60's, folks tended to riot a lot.

Could the facts behind such a huge program be kept secret? Sure it could. Witness the Manhattan Project: Thousands of contractors were involved over a period spanning several years with nary a peep from any of them. But the fundamental difference between the Project and the Race to the Moon was that people actually witnessed the products of our development efforts: thousands of innocent people died in nuclear explosions that other people actually witnessed. People saw the explosions firsthand. Nobody was on the Moon ready to receive our intrepid explorers when they arrived. There were no witnesses. How convenient.

Ah, but we talked to those guys enroute! Sure we did. But radio communications between Earth and the CM are almost trivial to fake, as are live video broadcasts from same. And because other parties - the Soviets, radio amateurs, hobbyists, interested nations - would be listening, the CM and LEM need only relay communications directed to them from NASA and beam them back to Earth on published frequencies. Don't communications satellites do this every day? Is this all so really far-fetched?

We were already experienced with landing unmanned craft on the Moon. Why not simply do it again, but this time tell folks that there were live humans on board ready to make a Giant Leap for Mankind? Heck, if we were going to fake it, the lander wouldn't even have to look like the LEM because nobody would be there to see it.

Was there a motive for faking all of this? Would it be worth the trouble? Would it be possible to conceal from the public the fact that we never actually went to the Moon, in spite of the scale of this project? We've done it before. Have we ever lied wholesale to the public concerning matters of national security?

What do you think?

I think this would make a fabulously entertaining alternative history fiction story, but you are NEVER going to convince people that it was fake IRL! You are a great writer though.. did you miss your calling? Don't give up. It isn't too late. I would run out and buy this book just for entertainment!

Chris

Funny you should mention it, as I'm nearly done.

I'd write more but I simply must finish this piece before I get scooped by one of those 911-Was-An-Inside-Job wackos, knowaddImean?

L8r

PS: Oprah says 'Hi!'

Hello Guest:

What do you think?

I think we landed on the moon, you're certainly right about the political situation of the era. But think about it, there were some very smart scientists and engineers in the Soviet Union, combined with the paranoia I don't think you could pull the wool over their eyes that easily.

It is a shame but you are also right about how far our government will go in the name of just about anything. Hopefully we have advanced past the point where we would withhold medicine from a population to see the effects of syphilis, our test hallucinogenic compounds on unsuspecting soldiers.

In comparison lying about going to moon would be insignificant. As far as the development of the first atomic bomb the Soviets had spies in the facility before it was complete.

Looking back at that era of nationalism is almost comical. Recently I watched a discovery special that would emphasize your point, I believe it took the USS Nautilus three tries to cross under the polar cap.

It developed a leak in one of the heat exchanger's, the solution was to paint over the numbers on the sub and send the crew into town (Seattle, Washington I believe) in civilian clothes to buy all the stop leak they could come up with. They needed something to shine, the Russians had just showed us up when they put Sputnik in orbit.

And even with all that I still say we went to the moon

You consider the presence of a retro-reflector on the Moon sufficient evidence that Man set foot there? How so? The US sent unmanned probes to the Moon years earlier; probes certainly capable of bearing retro-reflectors had the mission profile called for them. Is there anything about this device that sets it apart from other experiments borne by unmanned craft? So much so that it must be placed on the Moon by hand?

---

"Any US citizen that believes his country lied to him on this matter is working against his own country and for other countries that oppose the USA. Support your country, nothing less is acceptable..."

Blind, unquestioning faith in the integrity of one's government is the surest road to tyranny, my friend. You needn't look beyond your own (host country's) border for proof of that.

As a Guest of this forum there is no provision for me to rate YWRoadrunner's reply but, if I could, I would rate it well. His post is constructive, informative and not judgemental in the least, as are his others. I followed that link he provided and now I know something I didn't know yesterday. Something useful. Something which has some potential to sway my opinion about the matter at hand. A hearty thanks to you, YWRoadrunner, for going to the effort to find and post this link.

As for you, Mr. Germany: I took your earlier advice and read a number of your posts. I wish now that I hadn't. The majority were written in same spirit as the one you posted above - hostile, presumptuous, combative.

Having read your posts I rather suspect now that you regard this forum not so much as a place to share knowledge, ideas and a helping hand, but as a public vessel into which you freely pour your contempt on others from behind the safety of your keyboard. I don't know why you treat people in this way, Mr. Germany, but you don't have to. Truly.

I come on here for a good laugh, Mr Germany is one of my favourites (but he is not alone in being worth reading, there are many), he is hard but fair and if you really think about it, brutally honest. Not everyone can take that, you for example cannot it seems. It takes a strong character, guests usually do not exhibit that very often, or they would not sign on as guests. Simple to see.

I am a full CR4 member, but as you seem to be attacking (unfairly) anyone with an opinion, I am also posting as a guest as I don't need guest "a***holes" trying to jump on my head.

Either join CR4 and earn some respect with your (hopefully) well thought out comments, cross swords with the best on the best blog around, or go and play with yourself and leave us alone.....

that would be cool as long as the blow everything up at the end

I wonder what a low gravity blast with several hundred pounds of TNT would look like, OK I know what it would look like, chunks would float around for a very long time...

See the photos of the nuke detonations in space. A few thousand pounds of relatively low brissance TNT would be like a weather balloon popping in space in comparison to a Nuke. Modern Nukes can be pretty small, both in size and in yield.

You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me and not you.

You only say that to ppl who agree with you ... Ha! Flattery will get you everywhere.

The logon ID says it all.