Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Was the moon landing for real ???

Started by hartiberlin, October 16, 2006, 12:29:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Koen1

Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 06, 2007, 11:35:09 AM
You are still seriously disconnected with what things cost in the real world of space travel.  I think building a lunar base is a $300 billion (with a "B") plus project.  You just have no idea of the cost of getting materials to the moon and the cost of building there.

To give you perspective.  The U.S.'s share of the International Space Station's cost was $100 billion.  And this involves getting materials only to Earth's orbit, and this is only part of the entire cost.  So figure it out.

Oh, and now you want to dig up/drill into the moon?  Multiply that number by 3, 4?  Who knows.  How are you even going to get the equipment to drill or dig to the moon?  That stuff is real heavy.

Okay, since you apparently have some trouble with logical reasoning I will help you along a bit.
Obviously the trouble with the ISS was that is had to be a construction built to stand the vacuum of space, it had to be high tech, had to be crammed full of labs for testing, and had to be a construction of multiple modules. That meant the modules had to be made on earth because it is simply not possible yet to build them out there in space. The construction of the modules alone already cost billions. That was before anything was ever launched into space, which costs another bunch of billions.
Obviously such a construction project will be extremely expensive.
And obviously a project building a lunar base will be expensive too.
Yet, the most obvious method of constructing any type of habitat or working space on the moon (or mars for that matter) without having to bring tons and tons of building materials is digging (boring) tunnels. This is easiest since the rock is already there, no need to build a structure outside-in, simply hollow out the spaces you need.
Underground bases are nothing new to the US military and air force. Various large tunnel boring machines have been developed and used by these organisations in the past decades. This link claims to show a nuclear one, although I have seen over 5 different pictures of other types too: http://www.stevequayle.com/High.Jump/051107.tunnel.bore.html And please do not think they don't have that type of equipment; they even built a portable nuclear grenade launcher in the late 50s... No lack of funding in the US military-industrial shadow world. :)
In any case, all they would have had to do was to load one of those tunnel boring machines into a rocket and shoot it up to the moon. Once there, it would be a simple matter of switching on the machine and boring as many tunnels as they need. The most complex construction project involved with starting the construction would then be to build the airlock. Energy would be produced by nuclear reactor, which is also nothing spectacular for the military-industrial complex. Lockheed experimental craft for example had nuclear reactors in them, although you will not find any official documentation.

In any case, if one were to build the base inderground, the enormous costs of construction in space, using pre-fab modules built for exorbitant sums of money, would not be necessary. Basic construction could take place inside the hollowed out chambers underground; no need for space suits, no need for special training, no need for pre-fabricated air-tight modules. And as the construction would be carried out by the army core of engineers or some similar branch, it would also not cost as much as a normal commercial construction project would.
Instead of increasing costs compared to in-space connection of terribly expensive earthmade modules, the costs could very well be lower.

And to top it off: it doesn't really matter if it cost them 10 million or 10 billion to do it, for as you have stated yourself the US contributed over 100 billion to the ISS and that hunk of junk was militarily totally useless. It is well known the US spend billions each day fighting in Irak and Afghanistan, and that the US defense budget is a lot higher than any other budget... If they're willing to spend 100 billion on a space station with zero military value, and willng to spend x times more on war than on healthcare, then what makes you think even a few hundred billion would not be spent on a certain military superiority in space?
I think you focus a little too much on money and a lot too little on the significance and wealth of the military-industrial complex in the space game.

hartiberlin

Here is a very interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NWR5Dn6QI

1. it seems to show an object on the moon, which puts out some puff of
smoke stack or cloud..

2. This is from Apollo 8, where they just went around the
moon and did not land...

Look at the size of the earth and compare it with the actual
landing and moon photos of Apollo 9 and later missions !

There the earth is much smaller !
So the only conclusion is:
All the moon landing photos and videos are faked ba NASA.
Stefan Hartmann, Moderator of the overunity.com forum

TheOne

The money is not a concern anyway, they created false war like IRAQ etc.. to put money on other project. Do you really think a air plane can cost billions? common

gn0stik

Those moon buildings are a trip. They remind me of the Ark on ararat, the face on mars and the elephant I saw in the clouds yesterday.

Stephan, the lander's take off performance was not designed for earth gravity or atmosphere, it doesn't behave the same way here as on the moon.

Also, the Lem being gone from the platform can be a radio'd image, or evidence of a previous landing. Think it through.

What I find funny about many of these things, is that the very same sites that say we were never there, many times propose pictures that they took while they were (never)there are evidence that aliens ARE there.

Lighting anomalies are easily explained and replicated.

We went there, and soon, the japanese and chinese will show us pictures. Not that we need them, we measure our distance from the moon at least once a moon by reflecting light off of debris we left behind. (or maybe that's the alien bridge :o


shruggedatlas

This just in, the space shuttle flights are a hoax.  Notice how there are NO STARS in this picture!!!!!