PDA

View Full Version : 32 Things HBs Won't Answer About Their Theories



Daryl71
2006-Mar-08, 02:19 AM
Well, I hope this doesn't fall under the category of "spoof thread". I figured it would be interesting to expose the ignorance of the HBs while pondering the obscene logistical nightmare of pulling off a successful hoax. Don't worry folks, I'm not "one of them!" :D Don't bother asking them these questions, though. They'll just call you a moron, or demand you explain yourself without using acronyms. :rolleyes:

1) The LM Descent Engine generated 2600 pounds of thrust upon landing, and should supposedly have burned a massive blast crater in the lunar surface. In that case, shouldn't the heat from the 75,000-pound thrust turbofans on the Boeing 777 melt concrete and vaporize baggage handlers hundreds of feet away?
2) You say that non-parallel shadows are the result of multiple stage lights. If that were true, wouldn't "lunar" objects cast multiple shadows?
3) If the rocket motors hidden inside the F-1 were of such limited thrust, why did they generate flames more than 600 feet long?
4) How would a complete rocket assembly fit into the 14-inch diameter thrust chamber of the F-1?
5) An empty Saturn V rocket weighs 213 tons. With an Apollo spacecraft on top, about 250. How do these tiny rocket motors, which surely must employ an exotic high-ISP propellant, lift such a heavy assembly into Earth orbit?
6)How was it possible for NASA to reproduce the parabolic trajectories of billions of specks of dust in an Earth-bound environment?
7) You say that lunar gravity was simulated using slow-motion. When I speed the Apollo footage up to simulate "Earth gravity", the astronauts hop around like coke addicts. How many times per minute can a man wearing a 150-pound backpack hop up and down?
8) You say that the LEM is too fragile to operate in outer space, noting it's aluminized mylar thermal blankets, thin aluminum pressure hull. In that case, are most communications and weather satellites fake, also?
9) Apollo 15 astronaut James Irwin had a religious epiphany upon his return to Earth. Was he that impressed by the special effects?
10) You seem to feel as if the 1960s were some sort of dead-end in the arena of aerospace engineering. Were Gemini, the Concorde, the SR-71, XB-70, X-15, etc., also fakes?
11) Supposedly the Van Allen belts contain deadly radiation that will fry anyone in minutes. The ISS spends a good portion of the time in the inner layers of the belt. Is it also a fake, or do the astronauts retreat to a lead-lined chamber several times a day?
12) Supposedly the Apollo spacecraft stayed in Earth orbit. When the SIVB stage burned for five minutes to send the spacecraft to the Moon, how did it manage to so this with zero delta-velocity?
13) How did the CSM/LM, a 60-foot aluminum spacecraft covered in mylar foil and aluminized kapton, remain unseen by ground-based observers?
14) Why is it that the mid-60s era Apollo guidance computer was incapable of carrying out it's task, yet the mid-70s Space Shuttle computers are capable of flying a vastly more complicated spacecraft?
15) How come the United States create an Atomic Bomb essentially from scratch in four years in the 40s, but can't put a man on the Moon in nine years in the 60s?
16) Have you ever noticed that those supposedly whistle-blowing crosshairs appear only behind objects when that object is bright white?
17) In the early 70s, the Russians expended a 770-ton rocket to land a 1600-pound spacecraft on the Moon, which returned two pounds of rocks. In six missions, Apollo returned 836 pounds of samples. How many unmanned sample return missions, carried out in perfect secrecy, would be required to return that amount of samples?
18) Let's assume the Moon rocks were actually Earth rocks created in a "radiation oven." At least one of the Apollo samples were given to the Russians two years before their sample return mission. How did we manage to perfectly recreate an actual moon rock, on Earth, two years before those superior Russians had their own?
19) If the flag is being blown around by air currents on the stage, why isn't the dust around it being blown?
20) There's no atmosphere on the Moon, so stars should be visible in the photographs taken there. Photographs taken during every manned spaceflight also show a lack of stars. Were they fake, too?
21) You complain about the lack of dust on the LM footpads. How is dust supposed to billow in a vacuum?
22) The lunar module used hypergolic fuels, which produce a near-invisible flame when fired on Earth. Why should hypergolic motors produce a "bright orange" flame when fired in space?
23) Supposedly every picture taken on the Moon were perfectly framed. Are the hundreds out-of-focus shots of boots, gloves, and dirt completely intentional?
24) You say that Gus Grissom was murdered by NASA so he wouldn't spill the beans about the hoax. Wasn't there any easier way to go about this than killing three astronauts and destroying an $80 million spacecraft?
25) Approximately how many technicians were required to create the special effects for the missions, and how many months would it take them?
26) When I walk through a store parking lot on a sunny day, the streetlights cast non-parallel shadows on the ground. The sun is the only light source. Is NASA using special mind powers to trick me?
27) Did NASA use special mind powers to fling Pete Conrad from a moving motorcycle before he could spill the beans?
28) On a hot summer day, it could get up to 105 degrees outside. Shouldn't it be 105 degrees the instant the sun rises, just like it does on the Moon?
29) Richard Nixon was incapable of covering up an apartment burglary. How did he manage to pull off the biggest cover-up in human history in six months just three years before?
30) Is a 17,500 mph orbital velocity constant no matter what the mass of the body the spacecraft is orbiting?
31) Why didn't the Russians, who had their own manned space program, were planning on sending men to the Moon, and an extensive tracking network, blow the whistle on the hoax?
32) Why does NASA, an evil government-controlled bureaucracy with everything to hide, allow free and unrestricted access to documents detailing in insane detail the mechanical and operational details of their spacecraft, along with transcripts and technical documents relating to every detail of each manned mission?

PhantomWolf
2006-Mar-08, 02:41 AM
22) The lunar module used hypergolic fuels, which produce a near-invisible flame when fired on Earth. Why should hypergolic motors produce a "bright orange" flame when fired in space?

I think it is necessary to point out that 'hypergolic fuels' are not a bunch of fuels that produce near invisible flames, but rather fuels that will combust in the presence of an oxidiser. Many hypergolic fuels do actually have visible flames, it's just that the particular fuel chosen to be used for the LM doesn't.

Count Zero
2006-Mar-08, 03:28 AM
17) In the early 70s, the Russians expended a 770-ton rocket to land a 1600-pound spacecraft on the Moon, which returned two pounds of rocks. In six missions, Apollo returned 836 pounds of samples. How many unmanned sample return missions, carried out in perfect secrecy, would be required to return that amount of samples?

IIRC, it was three Russian mission that retrieved a total of 0.5 pounds of random samples.


30) Is a 17,500 mph orbital velocity constant no matter what the mass of the body the spacecraft is orbiting?

It took me four read-throughs to see what you were driving at, here. perhaps it could be worded better.

Nitpicks aside, I really, really like this. It may be a usefull tool. If nothing else, it could put the HBs on the defensive.

Swift
2006-Mar-08, 03:54 AM
Nice work Daryl71
Another possible one...
Since Ford no longer builds Model-Ts and is probably incapable of mass producing them any longer, even though they have blueprints, does that mean the Model-T was a hoax?

And an addition to #18 - What is the procedure for making a fake moon rock? What are the starting materials? (I ask this as a solid-state chemist - I'd like to make one for myself).

Daryl71
2006-Mar-08, 04:51 AM
IIRC, it was three Russian mission that retrieved a total of 0.5 pounds of random samples.


For some reason I was thinking of Lunkohod, which didn't return any samples.

So basically, the Russians expended three 770-ton rockets to land three 6.2 ton spacecraft on the Moon, returning a grand total of 230 grams of random samples. That's an average of 76 grams per mission. HBs like to flaunt the superiority of Soviet hardware, so let's assume each American mission can only return 40 grams.

Okay, let's assume each probe weighs about nine tons, as opposed to six tons for the Soviet counterpart. The Saturn V could send 52 tons on a translunar trajectory. Assuming each probe has a seperate de-orbit stage attached, each Saturn can carry four to the Moon.

Each Saturn V launch would return, on average, 160 grams of material. According to the Apollo record, the astronauts collected 379,207 grams of material. At 100% hardware reliability, 2,370 launches would be required. Unfortunately, HBs seem to assume that American rockets exploded constantly, so assuming 40% reliability, 5,925 launches. Okay, 60% of those probes land safely, and only 40% of the sample returns work successfully. Make that 20,737 launches.

According to Astronautix.com, the Saturn V had a launch price of $431 million in 1967 dollars. 20,737 launches would cost $8,937,647,000,000. Therefore, enormous, invisible Saturn V rockets thundered off their launch pads every 121 minutes in the period between 1967 and 1972, each launch carried out in perfect secrecy, unknown to everyone except an elite inner circle.

Yes, everything is possible. We're just learning this now. :shhh:

Kiwi
2006-Mar-08, 01:51 PM
What is the procedure for making a fake moon rock? What are the starting materials? (I ask this as a solid-state chemist - I'd like to make one for myself).

Aww, c'mon!!! It's very simple. You bake "it" (whatever "it" is) in a radiation oven. Or maybe a ceramics oven. That's all!

N C More
2006-Mar-08, 02:21 PM
Let's see, here you go, a recipe for "moon rocks" (http://christmas.allrecipes.com/az/MnRcks.asp). All it takes is 20 minutes in a 350 degree (F) convection oven.

What? Oh! You mean those moon rocks! :D

Seriously, I really enjoyed Daryl71's find. I especially like #27. To hear some of these HBs talk one would think that NASA has all sorts of special *powers*. Heck, it seems the X-Men have nothing on NASA!

jrkeller
2006-Mar-08, 02:49 PM
I coming up with my 32. Hopefully by days end.

Glom
2006-Mar-08, 02:57 PM
In that case, shouldn't the heat from the 75,000-pound thrust turbofans on the Boeing 777 melt concrete and vaporize baggage handlers hundreds of feet away?

That's the thrust for the A market 777-200s. 777-200ER, the most popular one, has engines of thrust between 80,000 and 90,000. The C market 777-200LR has engines of 110,000lbf. The 777-300 has 90,000lb engines and the 777-300ER has engines of 115,000lb.

Geo3gh
2006-Mar-08, 06:29 PM
In that case, shouldn't the heat from the 75,000-pound thrust turbofans on the Boeing 777 melt concrete and vaporize baggage handlers hundreds of feet away?

That's the thrust for the A market 777-200s. 777-200ER, the most popular one, has engines of thrust between 80,000 and 90,000. The C market 777-200LR has engines of 110,000lbf. The 777-300 has 90,000lb engines and the 777-300ER has engines of 115,000lb.

It's all becoming so clear: this proves the point I've been trying to make all my life for the last 30 seconds. Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport is a fake!

I can sleep easy now that the hoax has been exposed.

Nicolas
2006-Mar-08, 07:18 PM
That's the thrust for the A market 777-200s. 777-200ER, the most popular one, has engines of thrust between 80,000 and 90,000. The C market 777-200LR has engines of 110,000lbf. The 777-300 has 90,000lb engines and the 777-300ER has engines of 115,000lb.

These engines indeed do not burn holes. But a 747 exhaust plume can wipe away a fire truck. There's a video of that, but I have some questions about how things were done in that video.

That's why there are these strange fences at airports, for example next to the vehicle pathways on the tarmac (on parts of it at least): they "break" the flow of the exhasut so there is no strong flow behind them.

The fences can be seen on the bottom of this (http://web.tiscali.it/kribo/DelftZG/Schiphol.jpg) picture

About burning: the temperature of an exhaust plume reaching a surface is depending on the material temperature of the exhaust material and its speed. If you'd move your hand at the same speed as the exhaust plume of a rocket, it would be very cold. But if you'd let it slow down to zero onto your hand, well you wouldn't get a long time to try that :D.

What this has to do with the topic? That a one by one comparison can't be made too easily.

jrkeller
2006-Mar-09, 07:04 AM
Here are my 32

1) Thousands of geologists and chemists, including at least one Noble Prize winner, have examined the moon rocks are declared them genuine. How can people like Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel who have no education in these areas say they are fakes?
2) If the moon rocks are fakes, why does NASA still allow thousands of scientists a year to examine the rocks?
3) If the moon rocks are fakes, why has millions of pages of technical reports been produced claiming they are authentic?
4) How was all the data, such as temperature, flow rates, etc faked and how did it fool all the people who designed that equipment?
5) Many of the Apollo missions were visibly observed going to the moon by telescopes on the ground. How was that faked and who did it?
6) Why has there been no death bed confessions related to the moon hoax?
7) Since he had already released his report and testified before congress, why was Thomas Barron killed?
8) How were the hundreds of Australians who tracked and communicated with the Apollo crews fooled? Recall that tracking the moon is a much slower rotation than tracking a spacecraft in Earth orbit.
9) Why does James Van Allen, who discovered the Van Allen radiation belts and help plan the trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft through these belts, state the missions occurred, yet someone like Bart Sibrel, who has no college education state that these radiation belts will fry the astronauts?
10) How can all the data collected (moon rocks, seismic data, etc) from the Apollo missions withstand 37 years of scrutiny after it has been reviewed by hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists since the first landing?
11) Many hoax purveyors, like Cosmic Dave Cosnette have admitted to errors on their websites and agreed to fix them but havenít. Why is that?
12) Why does Bart Sibrel continue to state that Neil Armstrong doesnít give interviews, even though a simple Google search reveals several free interviews, including at least one audio interview?
13) Why have no respective journalists stepped forward and joined the HB crowd?
14) If as Bart Sibrel claims, the Apollo CSM was in low Earth orbit, why wasnít it observed by any astronomers or UFO nuts?
15) If as Bart Sibrel claims, the Apollo CSM was in low Earth orbit, how was tracking and communications accomplished?
16) If as Bart Sibrel claims, the Apollo CSM was in low Earth orbit, why does his smoking gun video show the Earth as a barely changing, while low Earth Space Shuttle missions show the Earth whizzing by.
17) If the flag is being blown around by air currents on the stage, why isn't the solar wind collector which is essentially a thin piece of aluminum foil not being blown around?
18) Some HBs claim ďThe pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases.Ē How can this be, when every other known material melts due to the pressure exerted on it by the atmosphere and the surrounding temperature? HBs how about a phase diagram?
19) Why did the HB crowd kill off Bill Kaysing, just as he was about to reveal that he made up the moon hoax to make some serious money and get back at his previous employer?
20) Why do HBs claim that four feet of lead shielding is needed for any spacecraft to traverse the Van Allen belts, when there are almost no gamma rays in these belts only trapped protons and electrons which require only 1 millimeter of shielding?
21) Why do HBs state that all radiation, like x-rays, alpha particles, gamma rays and beta particles, are identical?
22) Why do HBs like Jack White and Philippe Lheureux use only low resolution scans to make their analyses when high resolution scan are readily available?
23) Why do purveyors of the moon hoax charge money for their stuff, when NASA gives it away for free?
24) Why do the hundred of hardware and software engineers that developed the LM computer system say that this system was capable of landing the LM on the moon, yet a handful of HBs with no computer hardware or software background say it is impossible and no evidence make that assertion?
25) Why are there no records of Donna Tietze Hare, who claims to have worked in the NASA photograph labs and altered photographs, in any NASA phonebooks, or local area phonebooks from the 1960s or 70s or in any NASA database?
26) Why are any HB purveyors still alive? One would expect the NASA CIA assassination wing to get rid of these troublemakers.
27) How can my 10 year old son not be fooled by the parallel shadows argument, but adults, like Bart Sibrel and David Percy can?
28) Why do HBs claim that NASA was worried about LMís engine exhaust creating a blast crater, while documents from the 1960s available on the NASA technical reports server show otherwise? Actually solved as early as 1964.
29) Why do HBs claim that it cost thousands of dollars to obtain NASA documentation, photographs, etc., when they can be purchased from CG publishing for a minimal cost (20 US$)?
30) Why didnít the Russians blow NASAís cover after the wheat deal was cancelled?
31) Why didnít Nixon expose the JFK and LBJís moon hoax fraud, especially after the Democrats started the Watergate impeachment trial? A deathbed confession would have been really good here.
32) Who developed, built and launched the vehicles that placed the Laser Retro Reflectors on the moon and why are there no records of these launches?


Here's one more.

The HB crowd is always claiming that NASA rockets weren't 100% reliable, yet they have no problem believing that NASA was more than capable of developing rockets and robots that could collect moon rocks and place Laser Retro Reflectors on the moon when ever they are needed.

Gillianren
2006-Mar-09, 08:46 PM
You mean "respected" journalists, but otherwise, it's a good list. I laughed out loud several times, especially at the whole killing Kaysing thing.

Dwight
2006-Mar-09, 09:07 PM
I have one more question to add to the list of 32.

How can "Una McDonald" claim to have seen a coke bottle roll across the screen while watching an evening live telecast of Apollo 11's LEVA when; a. the resolution was so poor no writing could be read on a hypothetical bottle in shot, and b. there was no live telecast made at night, as in Australian time the moonwalk occurred after 7am EST? Furthermore, how can she claim the newspapers where full of letters from other people claiming they saw the same thing, when a search of all newspapers in Western Australia reveal no such letters were ever published?

Bob B.
2006-Mar-09, 10:44 PM
12) Why does Bart Sibrel continue to state that Neil Armstrong doesnít give interviews, even though a simple Google search reveals several free interviews, including at least one audio interview?

I don't think Bart Sibrel is still trying to claim this one. After Neil Armstrong appeared on 60 Minutes, Sibrel change his Web site (http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=7). Item #6 on his list is where Sibrel use to claim Armstrong never gave interviews.

Peter B
2006-Mar-09, 11:56 PM
Are people going to post these to GLP or Dave Cosnette's bulletin board? I'm sure Dave would appreciate a bit of action on his board... :-)

jrkeller
2006-Mar-10, 01:58 AM
I don't think Bart Sibrel is still trying to claim this one. After Neil Armstrong appeared on 60 Minutes, Sibrel change his Web site (http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=7). Item #6 on his list is where Sibrel use to claim Armstrong never gave interviews.

But his DVD still states this.

sts60
2006-Mar-10, 03:00 PM
I'd add to your #7 - why does NASA continue to host Barron's testimony on its own web site?

Also, one of my personal favorites - why did stations worldwide receive telemetry from multiple ALSEP experiments from the surface of the Moon (such signals cannot be faked by a satellite, due to the laws of astrodynamics) for years after the Apollo missions ended?

The ALSEPs were designed to be deployed and fueled by hand, and included hardwired experiment distribution over spans ranging up to the length of a (U.S.) football field. How were these done if not by astronauts?

Bob B.
2006-Mar-10, 03:18 PM
But his DVD still states this.
Good point. I guess it is easy enough for Bart to erase the claim from his Web site and pretend like it never happened, but he can't erase it from the videos he's already sold.

jrkeller
2006-Mar-10, 03:46 PM
Good point. I guess it is easy enough for Bart to erase the claim from his Web site and pretend like it never happened, but he can't erase it from the videos he's already sold.

And continues to sell.

The thing is that when he made his DVD, several Armstrong interviews were already online, so the claim was false when he made it.

Bob B.
2006-Mar-10, 04:28 PM
The thing is that when he made his DVD, several Armstrong interviews were already online, so the claim was false when he made it.
I agree the claim has always been wrong; I'm certainly not disputing that fact. However, prior to the 60 Minutes appearance the Armstrong interviews where little known by most people so Sibrel could easily lie about it. It is now much harder for him to continue telling that particular lie so he has changed his Web page -- effectively damage control. The fact the false claim is still on the video really doesn't matter to him because by the time the purchaser sees it, Sibrel also ready has the money. He doesnít need to change the product, just the sales pitch.

Count Zero
2006-Mar-13, 03:58 AM
You mean "respected" journalists...That species went extinct when John Holliman died a few years ago. Well, there's still Uncle Walter, but he's retired.