Moon To Have No-Fly Zones - No Joke

Miscellaneous General
1

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article2432999.ece

No-fly zones will come into effect on the moon for the very first time by the end of this month! Why, even buffer zones that spacecraft may have to avoid will come into existence. The reason: avoiding any spraying of rocket exhaust or dust onto certain historical sites and artefacts on the moon.

The historical sites are of course the Apollo landing sites and artefacts present on the moon. And the “recommendations” are for preserving and protecting these historical sites. There are currently more than three dozen historical sites that preserve the more than four-decade-old remains.

“Apollo 11 and 17 sites [will] remain off-limits, with ground-travel buffers of 75 metres and 225 metres from each respective lunar lander,” states the July 20 guidelines of NASA. Science journal had obtained the guidelines.

2

I hope someone informed the aliens…

3

Who will enforce these stupid laws? I suppose aliens too… or nazis

(hint: they have secret Moon base there)

4

They don’t want anyone looking at the supposed “landing sites” too closely.

Even when I was a kid reading about this, I was like “How did they get it exactly right?” There must be at least a million things that can go wrong. I mean, if you came in just a teensy bit hot or if the LZ was tilted even slightly off the expected level, the craft could simply roll over. Then what? No real service craft that I am aware of and which lands on Earth uses this method of landing. And the same problem applies to takeoff. All of this was required to launch with sufficient precision from Earth:

And you don’t even see the ground crew which surely numbered in the hundreds. But all you need to launch from the moon is a tiny little platform mounted on shock absorber legs and two astronauts. My skepticism on this issue is constantly increasing.

Clayton -

5

You think they’ve faked the moon landing? What about moon rocks?

6

I heard it is much easier to land and go up in a moon than in earth. And they were ready for an earth atmosphere, so no suprise they got pretty much everything right in easier conditions with lower gravity.

7

It requires 1/6th as much energy and the payload would be much smaller. Look, I don’t doubt that NASA really solved all the technical problems that would be required in order to land on the Moon and I don’t doubt they really built all the equipment to do it with. What I doubt is that it was actually done. I believe the experts if they say that it is much easier to take off and land on the moon. But the fact remains that just as many things can go wrong when landing on or taking off from the moon as can go wrong on Earth - irrespective of scale. Yet there is a marked difference in the level of preparations, equipment and manpower used to launch rockets from Earth compared to those used to take off and land on the moon.

Here’s the best video on fakery I’ve found yet:

Good luck debunking it.

Clayton -

8

What about them? If no one’s ever been to the lunar surface, then nobody has any genuine reference by which to debunk the moon rocks.

Clayton -

9

Here is a rocket that launched from Earth and performed a very similar mission to what the Lunar Module was supposed to perform, namely, launch two astronauts into an exact orbit. I’m not sure if the Gemini space module was lighter than the Lunar Module but my guess is that it was. Anyway, assuming they are equal weight, the rocket required to get off the Moon must be on the order of 1/6th that required to get off the Earth because the Moon is 6 times less massive than Earth. But scale is not what is bothering me, what bothers me is the absence of precision in the Lunar Module’s launch configuration. Look at the Gemini launch tower, it is as tall as the rocket itself. Its purpose is not only to permit servicing and entrance to the rocket but also to provide an absolutely precise reference against which to align the rocket. It is built on a huge concrete pad that is incredibly stable and immune to shifting, tipping or rotation. It would have to have been laid out many months in advance with the work of hundreds of men including experts in surveying according to specifications laid down by the rocket scientists. And the Lunar Module is supposed to replicate all this precision on four spindly legs and a tiny metal platform. I’m sure that, on paper, all the calculations are exact and so on. But exact calculations are never sufficient because of the presence of error in measurement or the oversight of variables that were not originally understood to be important until after failure. Look at the history of rocketry itself. It’s an incredibly messy business. It took many decades to get it right, especially on a large enough scale to launch things into Earth orbit. And the Gemini launch pad is a culmination of all those decades of learning. But the Lunar Module replicated all that learning on a heavenly body 250,000 miles distant in a tiny metal platform that was not put through the same rigorous testing that the tried-and-true concrete launch pad and rocket launch tower was. And it was successful the first time, every time. It is an understatement to say this strains credulity.

Clayton -

10

It gets worse. Not only have they lied about JFK 1963, 9/11, 7/7, the Moon landings (the space program was, of course, real but its purpose was to win the race to ICBMs and satellite technology, not to put a man on the moon), but I’m beginning to believe they lied about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well. The bombings of H&N have a similar narrative: American grit and determination in the face of overwhelming odds overcomes all obstacles and succeeds in proving American superiority with resounding force. In a matter of four short years, we go from firecrackers to weapons that can destroy entire cities based on the most abstruse ideas in modern physics. Unlike conventional weapons which took decades of experimentation to get the explosive mixtures right (at the cost of many eyebrows and thumbs), these weapons work first time, every time. No duds, no accidental detonations.

Look at photos of Dresden or Tokyo after fire-bombing and compare them to the photos of Hiroshima.

Look at footage (avail. on YT) of India’s “Smiling Buddha” nuke test, or of China’s nuclear test or Britain’s “thermonuclear” test. China’s is so fake, a child could see it. India’s looks fake to me - a modest amount of underground excavation and conventional explosives could easily produce the same effect. Britain’s footage is believed to be fake. Yet, all the long-faced experts at the IAEA accept every one of these countries as genuine nuclear powers.

Now, is it possible to simulate the effect of a multi-kiloton or multi-megaton explosion? In the case of multi-kiloton, certainly. In fact, it’s too easy and - if nuclear weapons are a hoax -then this would explain why we now have hydrogen weapons of multi-megaton yields… no private party could ever verify what such an explosion would look like.

For kiloton-scale explosions, look at footage of Operation Sailor Hat - an extremely large conventional explosion looks an awful lot like a shrunk-down version of what nuclear explosions are supposed to look like. Or, look at the shockwave from this detonation of the PEPCON rocket-fuel production facility in Nevada with a force equal to about 1 kiloton:

It is uncannily similar to the shockwaves in nuclear test videos.

For megaton-scale explosions, it doesn’t really matter since nobody can produce explosions that big except - supposedly - nuclear governments. I’m still uncertain whether all nuclear bombs are a hoax (though I’m leaning more and more in that direction) but I’m fairly confident that H&N and many of the “nuclear” tests by supposed nuclear powers are just lies.

Clayton -

11

Operation Sailor Hat:

Explosion of the rocket Delta II, actually pretty small in terms of energy released but the visual scale is absolutely massive:

A liquid propane gas explosion in Illinois, 1983:

Note the way the fireball mushrooms up just like in the videos of nuclear explosions.

Clayton -

12

Clayton, how does one fake radiation and its effect on the victims?

13

Last I checked, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are habitable. I wonder if they even have elevated levels of background radiation. As far as faking radiation more generally (at nuclear sites, etc.), you will recall the “dirty bomb” that is so often talked about by the National Security Theater Establishment. Just put some radioactive material on top of your massive stack of conventional explosives and - voila - you have radioactive fallout. As far as faking radiation victims, well, maybe that part wasn’t faked at all… :-/

I’ve been looking into radioactivity and I must say that nuclear radiation is incredibly energetic. There is no doubt about the physics behind radioactivity, nuclear decay, etc. I’m pretty hesitant to say nuclear bombs, generally, are not real - the above posts are more about exploring all the ways you might be able to fake it. However, I am highly skeptical of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, in particular. All physicists knowledgeable in the matter say that nuclear bombs are perfectly consistent with all known physical laws. All the nuclear physicists say that nuclear bombs are real. But I remain skeptical that the Manhattan Project actually developed the first nuclear bomb and successfully dropped nuclear weapons on Japan - even if nuclear bombs were later successfully developed.

Clayton -

14

Do you think all of the declassified documents on the matter are faked as well?

15

Once you see one Big Lie for what it is, you are inclined to question everything.

Still, I don’t think that “technology wasn’t advanced enough at the time” is a sound premise for doubt. If anything, secret technology is likely to be more advanced than the public is generally led to believe.

I don’t think there is sufficient basis in fact for disregarding the moon landing or the atomic bombings… I’m not saying it’s impossible, or that one can’t always speculate about motives, but I don’t think that doubting their technology is a bias that will be confirmed by reality in general. Not when you consider some of the shit that’s going on.

Most people don’t realise how grossly expensive and impractical nukes are - that it’s more about status than utility, and that you generally can get the same results with much simpler weapons systems - but I’m pretty sure they exist. A grossly expensive, impractical, immensely destructive status symbol considered necessary to keep us all safe in our beds at night is a pretty good metaphor for the state generally, don’t you think? :stuck_out_tongue:

16

Big Lie

government?

17

Big Lie

All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

18

I admit that the precision involved with the moon landings does sort of beggar belief… Especially the coming-back part. When you really think about it. :stuck_out_tongue:

A Saturn V to get there, and a tin can to get back…

Assuming it is all true, the people involved are basically demi-gods, aren’t they? I mean, normal human beings just can’t do this sort of thing. It’s when stories take on this vaguely Herculean quality and embed themselves in the popular consciousness as they do, that one does have to wonder if they haven’t seen this movie before…

19

Exactly. Z’s Hitler quote to which you refer is precisely what I had in mind.

It’s not about the advancement of technology, it’s about the amount of trial-and-error required to get anything right. The more abstruse the principles on which a device is based and the more sophisticated the equipment required to build the device, the more trial-and-error is required. Look at stealth technology, for example. The earliest work on stealth began around the end of WWII and didn’t reach its culmination in real weapons until at least three decades later.

I’m disinclined to believe this. While it is true that the government would like to maintain a technological edge on the general public, I think reality usually works out the opposite. The reason is that creativity is a market process that cannot be replicated - let alone superseded - by secret labs.

Look at the video linked above. It is genuine footage relased by NASA - much of it broadcast “live”. Look at the mistakes that the wire-work professional points out. They are nothing short of damning. I would love to hear someone debunk it.

Good point.

Yes, it certainly is. And, as I said, all the science seems to indicate that nukes - in general - are real. What I specifically have strong doubts about are the reality of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (and the Trinity test, etc.) If these were faked (and it’s well within the realm of possibility, look at the videos I linked above), then that casts a cloud of doubt on all nuclear weapons.

However, the most crucial aspect of the State is the Big Lie - without it, there can be no State. The Big Lie is the generalization of the Divine Right of Kings. It is the bullshit that supposedly proves with certainty that government is inevitable, necessary, beneficial. With the advent of “secular government”, the Divine Right of Kings argument no longer carries enough force to serve as the Big Lie foundation on which the State rests. Nuclear weapons, communist spies and assassins, and now terrorism (maybe one day extra-terrestrials?) play the role that the Big Wise Man in the Sky used to play when society was more theological.

Clayton -

20

Well, that’s a relief! Before, I was actually afraid of nuclear proliferation. I’ll sleep better knowing that nuclear arms are really just a figment of our collective imagination, put into our heads by the Illuminati. Or was it the Tea Party? No wait-- it was the Freemasons, right?

You seem very certain of what they lied to us about, which you manage to narrow down to pretty much everything. But you don’t seem to define just who “they” are or exactly why they’re doing what they’re doing. Crime requires motive, method, and opportunity. Conspiracy theories generally lack all three, but free their advocates from the need for both reason and guilt by blaming all the world’s problems on some third-party Boogeyman.