The Moon Landing: Stanley Kubrick's Greatest Film: How NASA and Hollywood Fooled the World (Video)

The Why Files ^ | 07/20/2023 | Why Files

[absalom01]

You are not offending me.

Not really trying to offend you, but everyone here *IS* laughing at you. That's not to be mean, but because the only alternative is to get frustrated at the way you're dragging down the level of discourse on FR with this foolishness.

[Magnum44]

Yes, as I said in an earlier post, these moon landing denier so called 'investigators' are a lazy bunch of morons.

[cgbg]

On FR just imagine we have a discussion on Topic X.

One side of the discussion calmly offers links that support their view.

The other side engages in name calling and bullying.

If you knew nothing about Topic X what would that tell you?

[NorthMountain]

There is no evidence of any claimed technological breakthrough or shortcut to negate WvB's '61 testimony.

Werner von Braun wanted to send a single spacecraft to the Moon, land there, take off again, and return to Earth. That plan suffers from the same problem as "single stage to orbit" (which you should learn about): it means carrying a lot of dead weight. His plan was rejected for that reason.

Orbital launches even today, and the Moon flights in particular, used repeated staging and jettisoning of empty fuel storage, in order to minimize the power needed to "get there".

The solution to von Braun's conundrum wasn't a "technological breakthrough", it was just better planning. A big part of Project Gemini, incidentally, was learning how to dock space in orbit. This would be necessary for the later Moon landings. You would do well to learn about the actual purposes of Project Mercury and Project Gemini.

Oh, and "aulis dot com" carries negative credibility.

[PCPOET7]

that just means we landed something on the moon it does not mean that. there was a Maned lunner landing. Like I said I believe most likely we did the maned landings on the moon. I just won’t make fun of some one that Questions it because Time has obscured that point in time and history.

[NorthMountain]

The other side engages in name calling and bullying.

You mean, things like turning someone's last name into a childish insult? Insisting that someone is homosexual because he takes one side over the other on a topic that has nothing to do with homosexuality?

That sort of thing?

Hmmmm ...

[Magnum44]

On FR just imagine trolling disruptors and mental deficients post a lot of Art Bell conspiracy nonsense and expect to not be ridiculed for the astronomical levels of stupidity.

Imagine if you were a reasonably educated person and came to that site and thought, what a bunch of loons posting here. Maybe what I heard on DU about right wing wacks is true.

[Magnum44]

So what do you teach your kids about any history beyond what you have personally witnessed? Your whole philosophy is retarded.

[Jan_Sobieski]

Perhaps! But there are more and more moon landing skeptics each day. Why? Our blinders are coming off and we are starting to rethink and test everything we’ve been told by this Government for the last 60 years starting with the Kennedy assassination. Being in aerospace gives me a slight advantage in my testing.

[Magnum44]

Equating the Kennedy assassination to landing on the moon shows a serious lack of common sense.

Being in aerospace gives me a slight advantage in my testing.

Apparently not.

[PCPOET7]

so crazy we are having this discussion my dad worked for lockeed and I suspect he was in the skunk works at lockeed. His work was classified and only found out about some of his projects when they were mentioned in the news years later or when we went to the space museum in Washington and his name was listed as an engineer who working on the project. these programs were verry compartmentalized. The more moving parts to an operation with only a few people knowing the overall picture the easier it is to obscure what actually is happening. Like I said I believe most likely we went to the moon, but you have to be open to the idea that aspects could of been faked. The unmaned stuff I have few questions about the validity of space travel/ its the maned area that are that gives me pause and has me wondering about whether it happened. space is an extremely hostile environment for life I believe most likely we did send some manned missions to the moon and then decided that the risks were not one we wanted to continue. Also, plausible but not likely is that in the rush to score a propaganda victory one or more were faked

[PCPOET7]

no. I just believe in being skeptical about what is taken for granted as being a historical fact.

[Magnum44]

You should be skeptical about a lot of things. Historical fact is not one of them. There is no 'taken for granted' about the moon landings. They happened. Thousands, actually tens of thousands, participated at all levels to make it happen. Millions witnessed it live on TV and in person at the launches and recoveries. Astronomers and amateurs world wide watched through telescopes, collected radio signals. The delay in signals due to the travel distance was noted. Present day lunar orbiting imagers have photographed the walking and rover trails on the surface, along with the equipment that was manually deployed and left behind. For 50 years the reflectors set up by the astronauts and left on the surface have been used to measure lunar orbit motion.

In 1969, we didnt have the robotic technology to do this without men. Today yes, but not then. It took men who risked their lives to advance our civilization and explore the unknown to do that.

Those 'skeptical' after all that are not being honest. They are deliberately being blind, stupid, or untruthful with a purpose. The 'skepticism' is disrespectful of those who sacrificed and even died in the cause at the time. So again, such disrespect deserves to be criticized.

[Ignatz]

“Polaris isn’t even due north. It’s just close enough for most purposes.”

That’s what I learned as an amateur astronomer.
Also, the Earth’s axis actually wobbles a bit; describing not a straight line through the planet, but rather two cones stacked point-to-point.

[rx]

Oh, and "aulis dot com" carries negative credibility."

Goll-lly, bub! We should all bow down to that backhanded, broad brush slap of "logic!" /s

We may all be sure the contemporaneous reports of cost overruns and delays for the NOVA booster project were all a ruse to coincidentally scrap the project because WvB and his Peenemünde #2, Kurt Debus, really just weren't bright or clever enough to think of a "single stage to orbit" solution. Please show the contemporaneous (that is, '63-'65) take-down of WvB's way of thinking in favor of placing a redesign-on-the-fly homeless shelter that would go to the moon with mis-measured mating pieces, inch-sized gaps in the outer hull, held together with tape to patch gouges and tears in its various-sized, wrinkled-or-smooth fabric, aluminum and 6mm foil (for shielding, of course--differing by inches with what the Orion project would decades later determine was necessary!). I can easily believe WvB wouldn't have desired he be associated with it, unlike Stanley Kubrick.

 

Unlike Magnum44's claim, for flights that skirted the upper edges of Low Earth Orbit, astronauts universally reported moderate to several visual effects (from increasing radiation beyond the Van Allen Belts). Such radiation would have been a continuous bombardment, both in the traverse to and on the moon.

Any manned flight to the moon in the rattle traps from Kubrick's sound stage (see pics here) would have died of radiation poisoning. That's why NASA had to claim all record of the Apollo mission technology was destroyed and "had to painfully built it back again" (e.g., in the Orion project).

Only someone in the pay of NASA could dare utter such a lie as the above with a straight face!

[Magnum44]

Such radiation would have been a continuous bombardment, both in the traverse to and on the moon. Any manned flight to the moon in the rattle traps from Kubrick's sound stage (see pics here) would have died of radiation poisoning.

And your credentials as a space environmental expert and human anatomy and physician are?

[rx]

You would do well to learn about the actual purposes of Project Mercury and Project Gemini.

...and you would do well to learn what that technical critic and lead astronaut of the Apollo Program, Gus Grissom, and Wernher (note spelling) von Braun internalized as Gus, Ed and Roger learned in the oxygen-fed conflagration that incinerated what would be dubbed Apollo 1.

[NorthMountain]

aluminum and 6mm foil

Wait ...

You describe 6mm thick sheetmetal as FOIL????

That's not foil, it's plate and way too thick to be used for the skin of an airplane, much less a spacecraft. The problem, here, isn't that 6mm plate was used for the skin of the LEM. It wasn't. The problem here is that you don't know what your're talking about and it shows.

Then there's this:

redesign-on-the-fly homeless shelter

Really? You expect to be taken seriously with that? < shakes head >

Finally, you don't seem to understand the problems with SSTO, or direct ascent to the Moon.

Here's some material from 1962 on the topic. I'm sure you can find more if you look beyond your non-credible "aulis" website.

[NorthMountain]

Yeah ... don’t use a high pressure pure oxygen environment. It makes everything flammable.

Now ... do YOU get what Mercury and Gemini were all about?

[bert]

drivel....... balderdascious drivel