[geocentrism] to Rob: apollo moon hoax

Rob, I have used a different font to clarify my responses embedded below.Gary 
Shelton--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In
 response to Gary's post.
"The story I always heard was they left on July 16, 1969 in 1st Quarter
phase of the moon, and splashed down some eight days later.  Forgetting the
radiation show-stopper for this essay, the other facts I heard as a kid when
they would invariably and irritatingly interrupt my cartoons (I'm 44 now)
were that the craft travelled at 20,000 mph and they took 84 hours to get to
the moon and another 84 hours to get back. "

Not quite. The Apollo Spacecraft didn't travel at a continuous speed the
whole time, as it left the Earth at the beginning of the translunar coast,
the speed was about 24,300 mph, but  the Earth's gravity worked on it after
that to slow it down even as it travelled outwards. By the time it got to
210,000 miles out from the Earth, Apollo has slowed to 2,000mph, but then
the Moon's gravity started to make it's presence felt and the spacecraft
began to accelerate towards the Moon. By the time it was ready to go into
Lunar orbit, the speed had reached 5600mph relative to the Moon, the burn
into Lunar Orbit then slowed it again to a 3600 mph lunar orbit.


"BUT HOW?  1st Quarter phase means (in the h-people world) that the moon is
exactly trailing the earth in the earth's orbit around the sun and therefore
travelling through space at the same or similar 66,000 mph as the earth does
around the sun.  This means that as Apollo 11 left the earth for the moon at
20,000 mph, the moon was simultaneously coming to them at 66,000 mph." 

No it wasn't. You haven't understood the relative velocities here. The Moon
is orbiting the Earth at a tangential velocity of 2300 mph, and the combined
system is orbiting the Sun at 66,000 mph relative to the Sun. The Moon does
have a slight variation in it's orbit round the Earth, so it does approach
and recede from the Earth as it orbits, but it approaches and recedes at
quite slow speeds, nothing like 66,000 mph. That is the speed that the
combined system is going round the Sun.Rob, can you please explain how you can 
simultaneously state that this earth-moon binarysystem you propose can be 
moving at 66,000 mph around the sun, yet incredulously, the moon is not moving 
at that same 66,000 mph?I have claimed that the moon, for h-people, is trailing 
the earth in the earth's orbit during the time of 1st quarter.  And that if so, 
assuming the moonspeed of 66,000 mph, then itfollows that in about 4 hours the 
moon will have traversed the 250,000 mile distance tothe earth, and occupy the 
same space that the earth previously did.  Therefore, anythingleaving the earth 
in 1st Quarter and heading toward the moon would merely have to wait and the 
moon would simply greet it in 4 hours.  Rob, if you do concur the moon moves at 
66,000 mph (which you half seem to), how does it not work the way I have just 
described? (Strictly speaking, the Moon is not orbiting the Earth. The Moon is 
quite a
big body, and in fact the Earth and Moon jointly rotate round a point in
between called the Barycenter. However this is only a couple of thousand
miles from the centre of the Earth.)If you believe this, Rob, then what in the 
world are you doing on this geocentric mailing list? The notion that the earth 
spins about an axis at its core is ridiculous enough.  To add this "Barycenter" 
as a second"axis" for the earth to spin around a mere "couple of thousand miles 
from the centre of the Earth" is flat-out preposterous.  This means that, on 
our 4000 mile radius earth, there are two centers within our own globe that we 
simultaneously, somehow, turn around. "This combined speed was 86,000 mph.  And 
the distance separating the moon
and the earth is taught to us at about 250,000 miles.  So I ask again:  How
did it take 84 hours to get to the moon?  It should have only taken 4 hours.
What were the astronauts doing all these extra 80 hours?  This is a puzzle,
is it not?"

No, for the reasons given above. The Moon was never approaching the Apollo
spacecraft at anything like that speed.Again, Rob, how can the moon NOT be 
going 66,000 mph under your version of heliocentricity when theearth-moon 
system you back is going that rate?


"Still, a bigger puzzle occurs for the return trip.  The moon is moving
between 1st Quarter and Full Phases now, and the major factual change is
that the destination object, the earth, is no longer coming at the
astronauts as the moon was originally.  It is in fact moving away from them.
At the very most generous, one might say the earth and moon were moving
parallel to each other at this time, as they would during Full Phase.  But
the earth is clearly not heading toward the returning astronauts.  (Keep in
mind I am using a simple circular path of the moon around the earth as my
basis for this hypothesis.) "

For the same reasons given above, the Moon was not 'coming at' the
spacecraft origininally in the sense you meant, i.e. at 66,000 mph. I think
you have the idea that when the Moon is waxing, it is coming nearer the
Earth, and when it's waning,it is receding from the Earth. It isn't. If it
was, you'd see it getting bigger in the sky!Rob, I have no such 
misunderstanding. 

"So, the question is thus:  How does it take the same amount of time for the
return trip as it did to reach the moon?  There are very different factors
to take into account if you are a heliocentrist."  

No they are not. The factors you speak of are a result of your not
understanding relative speeds.You know, the trouble with what we are discussing 
here is that we are trying to prove a "negative".  We're trying to iron out 
facts in a worldview that simply does not exist.  The earth doesn't move 
anyway, so all this claptrap about "relative speeds" is just that, a lot of 
nonsense.  Nonetheless, if you say that the moon is moving at 66,000 mph, then 
that is absolute, not relative.  If you sayit is only moving at 2300 mph in 
some kind of closed loop orbit about the earth, or in some kind of far-fetched 
binary relationship, then that is what I assume you mean by "relative".  The 
trouble comes in when you state that the moon is moving at 2300 mph relative to 
the earth, and simultaneously at 66,000 mph with the earth around the sun, yet 
you fail to see the moon will occupy the same space the earth occupies 4 hours 
later in 1st quarter phase under heliocentricity.  For if it does, then my 
point that the moon "comes at" the astronauts of Apollo 11 in 4 hours is 
validated."It is almost laughable to think that the astronauts could have left 
the
surface of the moon travelling at a puny 20,000 mph and trying to catch an
earth moving at 66,000 away from them.  Wouldn't this be akin to a fast
runner trying to catch a faster moving car, that is already going highway
speed and is already twelve hours' distant from the runner when the runner
takes off?  How does this runner catch the car?  Likewise, how did the
astronauts catch the earth? Was it the "Slingshot Method"?"

The Apollo spacecraft did not leave the Moon at 20,000 mph. The Transearth
injection maneuver increased the spacecraft speed to 5,500 mph approaching
the Earth. As it drew nearer the Earth, the Earth's gravity pulled on it to
increase the speed of Apollo until by th time it hit the top of the
atmosphere, it was travelling at 25,000 mph. I strongly recommend you get a
basic book about space exploration, your understanding of how Apollo got to
the Moon and back is very flawed.Rob, I admit I do not know the entire flight 
schedule of Apollo 11.  But any speed they flew at less than the maximumonly 
serves to make my point even stronger.   Moreover, I don't want to bog myself 
down with the phony details of"how Apollo got to the Moon and back".  It was a 
complete lie and never happened anyway.  The same as the fact that we have been 
taught that the earth rotates and revolves.  Junk and more junk.
"I believe the simple truth is that we never went to the moon with Apollo.
"

If this is your only reason, it is a false one. Try another.Well, Rob, it isn't 
my only reason, but I don't feel you have proven your contention that this one 
is false anyway.  Still, the photographic evidence provided by Percy, et.al. in 
"Dark Moon" should convince anybody about the moon hoax, regardless what I say. 
Plus, there is the "show stopper" called radiation. Gary Shelton

Regards,
Rob.

Other related posts: