Moon landing hoax

[EnterTheVoid]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

You didnt take science stream in grade 11+12 did you ?

Look up basic wireless switching. Its been around since late 50s IIRC. 

None of your questions are basic, they are absolute moronic that someone who passed grade 10 physics should be able to answer. You need to lay off illiterate western conspiracy theories. Of all things to ape the gora in, you aped them in their lowest IQ takes. brilliant!

 

 

 

Indians are generally respected for their scientific and engineering prowess.

 

Guess there is an exception to every thing

 

Vamos_retard's antics shame an entire generation.

 

Retard true to the name through and through. 

[Vijy]

11 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Why did they stop?

apollo missions in total were 100 billion USD in modern terms. NASA lost that kind of funding from early 70s onward once the space race was deemed to be won by US. reasons were chiefly economic

[Lone Wolf]

@badmash Chinese rocket pe chotu sa Camera Fit kiya ab tum logo ne

Chillu bhar paani mai doobne ka time aa gya ab to...   Tum logo ke bas mai nhi Moon ki shakal dekhne ki bhi

[coffee_rules]

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Because going to the moon is the PR exercise. the real reason was to refine ICBMs. The same rocket that goes to the moon, is the same rocket that you use to drop a nuke 15,000 kms away. Just need some guidance mods. 

Once you've been there a few times, the tech is sufficiently refined to not require further refinements. 

Thats also why we and China are so interested in going to the moon- testing OUR ICBM tech.

 

 

 

Certainly seems like a conspiracy theory.  Did they find out all they wanted for ICBMs abruptly in 1972? The rocket technology, navigation, fuel every technology is ever evolving. I can't believe this theory. 

 

The reason that I am familiar is that they had no funds because of public sentiment being dismayyed by war efforts in Vietnam, they wanted to finish the war sooner.  This aligns with what @Vijy indicated.

[coffee_rules]

10 hours ago, Mariyam said:

@Real McCoy

 

The Indian moon rover took pictures of the Niel Armstrong's moon lander.

 

Sharing what I came across on the internet without any comments/opinions.

 

https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/when-chandrayaan-2-found-neil-armstrongs-apollo-lander-on-the-moon-2517826-2024-03-21

 

Says the picture was taken 100s of kms away. Also, didn't Apollo lander was used to take off and come back home as well? I have to check further. They could have left parts of the moon lander and used a module only to take off. 

[coffee_rules]

9 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

before we go there let me ask you the basic questions raised here in this thread which are

 

1. how did Nixon call the astronauts using the land line that too in the 60s

2. images shown when nasa did the moon landing in the 60s have shadows at angles when the sun was the only luminous object in the sky. 
3. this one 

there are several basic questions that need to be answered before we jump into others

We already covered Nixon call on Page2:
 

 

[Mariyam]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

 

Says the picture was taken 100s of kms away. Also, didn't Apollo lander was used to take off and come back home as well? I have to check further. They could have left parts of the moon lander and used a module only to take off. 

Haven't the foggiest. Was just sharing what I read. And to be fair, I only glanced through the article after reading the headline.

 

Some years ago, took my daughter to the planetarium where they were speaking about relative sizes and distances of planets. Apparently if the earth is a cricket ball, the next planet Mars is like a large lemon and is nearly 12 kms away. Jupiter would be a boulder around 45 kms away and something of the sort. Makes us feel very insignificant and not unique at all.

[Mariyam]

10 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

before we go there let me ask you the basic questions raised here in this thread which are

 

1. how did Nixon call the astronauts using the land line that too in the 60s

2. images shown when nasa did the moon landing in the 60s have shadows at angles when the sun was the only luminous object in the sky. 
3. this one 

there are several basic questions that need to be answered before we jump into others

TBH I am not unduly worried about the American moon mission. I am just concerned about ours. And what all we can learn from it.

 

Edited May 3 by Mariyam

[Real McCoy]

52 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

We already covered Nixon call on Page2:
 

 

 

Ah yes you did. I forgot. There is more to this than just the Nixon call.

 

@Mariyam you're making me go through the thread again. Why don't you go through the thread for me and find out the questions

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

7 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Haven't the foggiest. Was just sharing what I read. And to be fair, I only glanced through the article after reading the headline.

 

Some years ago, took my daughter to the planetarium where they were speaking about relative sizes and distances of planets. Apparently if the earth is a cricket ball, the next planet Mars is like a large lemon and is nearly 12 kms away. Jupiter would be a boulder around 45 kms away and something of the sort. Makes us feel very insignificant and not unique at all.

In the words of Carl Sagan:

 

"We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering."

[Real McCoy]

Just now, Mariyam said:

TBH I am not unduly worried about the American moon mission. I am just concerned in ours. And what all we can learn from it.

 

 

I don't know much about our mission. I didn't even watch it or follow the news regarding this. This hoax is about the american one that too in the cold war period.

[Real McCoy]

Just now, BacktoCricaddict said:

In the words of Carl Sagan:

 

"We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering."

 

Isn't Carl Sagan a psuedo-scientist with no history of doing anything sciency. Its interesting you quote him

[Real McCoy]

13 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Haven't the foggiest. Was just sharing what I read. And to be fair, I only glanced through the article after reading the headline.

 

Some years ago, took my daughter to the planetarium where they were speaking about relative sizes and distances of planets. Apparently if the earth is a cricket ball, the next planet Mars is like a large lemon and is nearly 12 kms away. Jupiter would be a boulder around 45 kms away and something of the sort. Makes us feel very insignificant and not unique at all.

 

Don't let science enthrall you. Everyone of us in unique and significant in our own way. You should look into something that is bigger and better than science. Its called spirituality and god. Matter originates from god and is part of god in my religion. Materially we may appear small in gargantuan ocean of space but we can be one with god.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

 

 

Certainly seems like a conspiracy theory.  Did they find out all they wanted for ICBMs abruptly in 1972? The rocket technology, navigation, fuel every technology is ever evolving. I can't believe this theory. 

 

The reason that I am familiar is that they had no funds because of public sentiment being dismayyed by war efforts in Vietnam, they wanted to finish the war sooner.  This aligns with what @Vijy indicated.

 

Thats not a conspiracy theory. thats common knowledge in the industry. Incremental evolution of tech doesnt require spending billions of dollars for a flagship PR project. new tech does. The change in missile tech from 1950s-1970s was exponential. since then, its been incremental. 

Obviously justifying funds for an incremental dev takes far more convincing than justifying funds for a quantum leap.

 

[Real McCoy]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

 

 

Certainly seems like a conspiracy theory.  Did they find out all they wanted for ICBMs abruptly in 1972? The rocket technology, navigation, fuel every technology is ever evolving. I can't believe this theory. 

 

The reason that I am familiar is that they had no funds because of public sentiment being dismayyed by war efforts in Vietnam, they wanted to finish the war sooner.  This aligns with what @Vijy indicated.

 

Shortly before NASA was formed there used to be a NACA its more aviation oriented. NACA were busy with improving the speed of the aircrafts and they made rapid progress in just a few decades. It was like the AI of recent times. NACA was also not in favor of going into space and the moon. I will try to get more information about them.

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Thats not a conspiracy theory. thats common knowledge in the industry. Incremental evolution of tech doesnt require spending billions of dollars for a flagship PR project. new tech does. The change in missile tech from 1950s-1970s was exponential. since then, its been incremental. 

Obviously justifying funds for an incremental dev takes far more convincing than justifying funds for a quantum leap.

 

Same with rocket and space technology, the mission back to earth has changed so much since 1972, they don't pick them up from the ocean, but the shuttle lands back like a aeroplane. If they had pursued with moon exploration, they could have landed on the moon somilarly by now. We are still landimg on the moon with 1970s technology. Russians were never successful landing on the moon despite matching and advancing better than USA in nuclear technology and space exploration. That is my pet peeve with moon exploration, USA went there 6 times and stopped all of a sudden and even they are finding it tough to go back.  

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Same with rocket and space technology, the mission back to earth has changed so much since 1972, they don't pick them up from the ocean, but the shuttle lands back like a aeroplane. If they had pursued with moon exploration, they could have landed on the moon somilarly by now. We are still landimg on the moon with 1970s technology. Russians were never successful landing on the moon despite matching and advancing better than USA in nuclear technology and space exploration. That is my pet peeve with moon exploration, USA went there 6 times and stopped all of a sudden and even they are finding it tough to go back.  

they already landed on the moon. multiple times. So once the PR stunt is done, once the main tech of ICBMs is perfected, what is left to justify the hundreds of billions of dollars project ? Russians have 'landed'  on the moon and various planets in the solar system like we have - with rovers. And IIRC, its the Russian rover on Venus that was the first to send pictures of landscape of venus. 

Look at it this way - moon landing & race to moon phase was the first 50 years of car technology. Cars came a looooooooooong way from ford model T to the ford mustang. Everything is different- the lay of the engines, cylinder design, number of cylinders, transmission, axle, everything. But what has happened to cars from the 80s to now ? incremental changes. the main frame is the same - the incremental development has come in efficiencies, electronic control and more gadgets. Except for the automatic transmission, cars from 2024 have more in common mechanically with cars from 1970s, than the cars from 1970s have in common with cards of 1930s. 

before car designs started from scratch. now, most new cards are just redesigned old cars. because the technology has more or less matured and except for EVs, ICE engine cars are in incremental improvement phase and has been for the last 30 years. 

Especially with availability of sophisticated computer simulation, the need to build a car from scratch and test it every which way is now gone-same applies for the american or soviet missile tech. 

But we are in the phase of testing out or long range missile capabilities. What does an ICBM and moon rocket have in common ? pretty much the entire framework is same. Moon rocket requres way more sophisticated tracking and targeting than an ICBM ( targeting a landing spot on the moon is the ICBM equivalent of launching a missile from Delhi and targeting one particular table in buckingham palace room 15). ICBMs on the other hand, are more compact and require greater efficiency than a moon rocket, which if required, you can build as tall as the eiffel tower but that wont work for missiles. 

That is our main thrust for going to the moon and so is China's - China doesn't have easy testing opportunities for their missiles either - Central asia is too close for a landing spot and pretty much anywhere in the pacific or atlantic is covered in hostile nation's territories, where all hell will break loose if they spot even a dummy chinese test icbm. So for them, the moon project is essential. Not to mention, huge PR windfall, especially given that the Chinese Space Station is orders of magnitude more advanced than the ISS (comparing the ISS to the CSS is like comparing a 1950s pickup truck to a 2020 ferrari). 

 

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

they already landed on the moon. multiple times. So once the PR stunt is done, once the main tech of ICBMs is perfected, what is left to justify the hundreds of billions of dollars project ? Russians have 'landed'  on the moon and various planets in the solar system like we have - with rovers. And IIRC, its the Russian rover on Venus that was the first to send pictures of landscape of venus. 

Look at it this way - moon landing & race to moon phase was the first 50 years of car technology. Cars came a looooooooooong way from ford model T to the ford mustang. Everything is different- the lay of the engines, cylinder design, number of cylinders, transmission, axle, everything. But what has happened to cars from the 80s to now ? incremental changes. the main frame is the same - the incremental development has come in efficiencies, electronic control and more gadgets. Except for the automatic transmission, cars from 2024 have more in common mechanically with cars from 1970s, than the cars from 1970s have in common with cards of 1930s. 

before car designs started from scratch. now, most new cards are just redesigned old cars. because the technology has more or less matured and except for EVs, ICE engine cars are in incremental improvement phase and has been for the last 30 years. 

Especially with availability of sophisticated computer simulation, the need to build a car from scratch and test it every which way is now gone-same applies for the american or soviet missile tech. 

But we are in the phase of testing out or long range missile capabilities. What does an ICBM and moon rocket have in common ? pretty much the entire framework is same. Moon rocket requres way more sophisticated tracking and targeting than an ICBM ( targeting a landing spot on the moon is the ICBM equivalent of launching a missile from Delhi and targeting one particular table in buckingham palace room 15). ICBMs on the other hand, are more compact and require greater efficiency than a moon rocket, which if required, you can build as tall as the eiffel tower but that wont work for missiles. 

That is our main thrust for going to the moon and so is China's - China doesn't have easy testing opportunities for their missiles either - Central asia is too close for a landing spot and pretty much anywhere in the pacific or atlantic is covered in hostile nation's territories, where all hell will break loose if they spot even a dummy chinese test icbm. So for them, the moon project is essential. Not to mention, huge PR windfall, especially given that the Chinese Space Station is orders of magnitude more advanced than the ISS (comparing the ISS to the CSS is like comparing a 1950s pickup truck to a 2020 ferrari). 

 

What I meant was Russians never had a successful manned mission to the moon.  All the 12 humans who have walked on the moon are US men from Apollo missions between 69-72

[coffee_rules]

6 hours ago, Mariyam said:

Haven't the foggiest. Was just sharing what I read. And to be fair, I only glanced through the article after reading the headline.

 

Some years ago, took my daughter to the planetarium where they were speaking about relative sizes and distances of planets. Apparently if the earth is a cricket ball, the next planet Mars is like a large lemon and is nearly 12 kms away. Jupiter would be a boulder around 45 kms away and something of the sort. Makes us feel very insignificant and not unique at all.

Enjoy this short video to realize se how insignificant we are in the universe. That’s why we believe in Aham Brahmasmi  (Ana Al Haq) - I am the Universe 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

On 5/3/2024 at 5:41 PM, coffee_rules said:

Enjoy this short video to realize se how insignificant we are in the universe. That’s why we believe in Aham Brahmasmi  (Ana Al Haq) - I am the Universe 

 

 

Unfathomable.