You would have to hide an awfully large rocket, it's production and launch. That seems.... non-trivial. The technology may have advanced, but the laws of physics for the thrust to get us there haven't.The moon-based conspiracy which tugs at my imagination more is the idea that Apollo 17 was not the last manned lunar mission, and that men have continued to visit, in secret, since 1972. It seems to me quite unlikely that, with the advances in technology over the intervening years, that the entirety of manned trips to the Moon spanned only 3 years, with nothing in the last 43.
Shouldn't the backgrounds not actually change much, due to being very far away. Less change than expected would be evidence that the backgrounds are farther, not closer.@Peripart , thank you. Looking at what appears to be contradictory or unrealistic imagery that officially depicts key events such as Apollo does not necessarily deny the entire existence of what happened. It can, however, raise much-more complex alternative possibilities....and intentions.
In a nutshell...if (for the purposes of this point) it is accepted that I am not a gullible fool, and neither are at least some of the analysts that, similarly, can detect potential fraudulence: might there be substance, on a per-case basis, to what is being asserted?
Perhaps I'll resist the slings and arrows a little longer, and post (for example) some of the research carried-out a few years back by a maths academic at the University of Warwick http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/ftp/hadley.pdf .
This uses some almost-comprehensible trigonometry to prove (at least to the satisfaction of the author) that the backgrounds in the pictures analysed simply do not change sufficiently, when reconciled against moving vantage points within a purported physical reality.They correspond with 2D backdrops inside a massive film-set.
Whilst this may (no, will) be viewed as utterly-unacceptable nonsense by many reading this, I respond by saying: so just what is going on?
If I'm not tarred and feathered, I'll then possibly post about the lunar horizon drop-rate. Oddly enough, as depicted within the official photographic record, it again corresponds to (massive but non-lunar) studio dimensions....but not to the trig-tangents of a real uninterrupted moon surface.
What to do, what to say....but, counter-facts, even refuted, if undisprovable, are...still there
I have the same sneaking suspicions too (but with no foundation for such thoughts).
The excuse for not going back was always to do with money I thought, with NASA not receiving enough cash from the government because of all the money going to fund killing people in various wars. I once heard somewhere that if it wasn't for the Vietnam war the US would have a permanent base on Mars by now. And if it wasn't for the War on Terror they would have also have had a Lunar base by now too.
Nah. Can't do everything...Shame on you!
Anyone who thinks the moon shots were faked needs to read some personal history along the lines of "Carrying the fire". If your a denier and can keep hold of your misconceptions in the face of an avalanche of technical reality then your reason for doubting is not based on anything tangible.
Sorry to be so strident but this hoax thing is *ollox.
The rockets carry their own oxidizers. Hydrogen peroxide for example, the stuff you use for bleaching your hair.
Fortean- Minded agents, I just like aggravating them by telling the truth. I know, its childish of me but tricks are for kids and don't tell the rabbit.I am not saying that the entire Apollo programme was hoaxed (though some do clearly believe this). I am pointing-out that there appear to be many anomalies in the depicted photographic and video records of the missions.
It worries me that Fortean-minded individuals would define this area of consideration as being an absolute "red line"....despite valid mathematical analyses and apparently-methodological approaches.
Perhaps they don't entirely share the possible sentiment/intent conveyed within that curious speech, delivered by Neil Armstrong on 20 July 2004
"There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth's protective layers"
For those of you, that unquestioningly-accept the gospel reality of every single Apollo picture: what on earth do you think that quiet, awkward man was trying to say??
Quite a few rockets use LOX, Liquid Oxygen.Can anyone explain to me, how does combustion work in space if there is no oxygen?
Rockets have liquid oxygen on board.Can anyone explain to me, how does combustion work in space if there is no oxygen?
I didn't know V2s made it to outer space.Quite a few rockets use LOX, Liquid Oxygen.
But it really worries me that in this day and age someone can actually ask this question!
The all-knowing internet seems somehow inaccessible to some people, so no wonder they latch on to fuckwit conspiracy theories instead!
The WWII German V2 rocket, the A-4, "used a 74% ethanol/water mixture (B-Stoff) for fuel and liquid oxygen (LOX) (A-Stoff) for oxidizer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket
The V-2 rocket became the first artificial object to cross the boundary of space with the vertical launch of V-177 on 20 June 1944.I didn't know V2s made it to outer space.
The V-2 rocket became the first artificial object to cross the boundary of space with the vertical launch of V-177 on 20 June 1944.
Operation Paperclip.Some believe Nazis got to the Moon.
Operation Paperclip.
I don't believe Werner von Braun actually set up a moonbase.
The moon-based conspiracy which tugs at my imagination more is the idea that Apollo 17 was not the last manned lunar mission, and that men have continued to visit, in secret, since 1972. It seems to me quite unlikely that, with the advances in technology over the intervening years, that the entirety of manned trips to the Moon spanned only 3 years, with nothing in the last 43.
By 'fuel' do you mean 'finance'?Rivalry between China and the West could fuel the race to Mars.
Can anyone explain to me, how does combustion work in space if there is no oxygen?
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, because obviously it cannot. What it can do is penetrate the space between your ears with a cathode boob tube and tell us just about anything.Obviously it cannot. What is never covered in science coverage of the docking routine of the ISS involves a fishing reel, some 20lb monofilament line with a sink plunger tied on the end.
Of course the BBC have been in on this from the beginning, even going as far as to cover the 'landings' on live television. Which is why they had Patrick Moore bumped off.
** BBC, publisher of the 'Radio Times'...B x B x C ( or 2 TIMES 2 TIMES 3=12; the approximate number of LUNAR months in a year!!!)