This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Smithsonian Launches Crowdfunding Campaign to Restore Neil Armstrong’s Spacesuit
On Monday, the 46th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, the Smithsonian launched its first crowdfunding campaign they’re calling “Reboot the Suit” to conserve, digitize, and display Neil Armstrong’s spacesuit that he wore on the moon. The museum has raised over 86 percent of its $500,000 goal since the launch of the campaign.
The campaign to restore Armstrong’s suit is the first in a year-long partnership with the crowdfunding platform, Kickstarter. Museum officials hope to use the platform to target new donors to the Smithsonian Institution, which receives over $800 million in federal funds every year – about 62 percent of its $1.3 billion budget. Restoration of the suit is not covered by federal appropriated funds, hence another reason to crowdfund the project. The Smithsonian is also in the middle of a seven year, 1.5 billion fundraising campaign; however, officials do not expect their crowdfunding efforts to compete with that or other fundraising campaigns.
The Smithsonian plans to use the funds to preserve the suit, digitize it via 3D scanning, photogrammetry, chemical analysis, CT scanning, and other means, and have it ready to display on the 50th anniversary of the moon landing in 2019.
Supporters of the campaign are eligible to receive rewards for their tax deductible donations ranging from digital posters to tours of the Emil Buehler Conservation Lab at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, VA to see the suit in person. It’s also been rumored that donations over $15,000 will give you the chance to publicly insult Buzz Aldrin and have him punch you in the face à la Bart Sibrel.
[original]
»
- EquityNet's blog
- 10845 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
After watching an interesting documentary on the Hunley and all of the disasters involved in developing the submarine, I concluded that the likelihood that a successful moon landing and return trip on the first try, especially the way they say they did it, is extremely slim. I would bet against it with 100% confidence. Government is a bullying braggart that gladly accepts and presents coerced fudged numbers and fabricated accomplishments, like Nero crashing early in the chariot race and demanding to be named the winner anyway, and having no shame about everyone knowing.
Happened didn't happen that's debatable. BUT what the fuck these cocksuckers since 1969 have spent trillions killing others miles away for fucking decades and they have to beg the taxpayers that they rape daily to restore a spacesuit? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH OUR COUNTRY!
"WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH OUR COUNTRY!"
It, we, are being occupied by a plundering fifth-column element, Zion, their fiat-poison printing banksters, and their violence-puppets, the treasonous and tyrannical DC US government.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
In answer to your probably rhetorical question as to what happened to Ummerikka, this...
https://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/truth-about-america-truth-ab...
I read your blog that you linked above ORI, and found it to be quite good.
I had only heard of Trafficant before but didn't know that he stood up in Congress regarding the destruction of The United States of America by bankers.
Thanks.
You're welcome NDA, I was quite blown away by this as well.
There is some dispute even as to the existance of this speech IN the CONgressional records, some say it was expunged etc....
They did jail and kill him off finally a couple of years ago I think....
Good link, I woke up in 2011 and shook off my programming. First it makes you mad ,then it makes you depressed . Then you just try to survive knowing TPTB are nothing but a bunch of Organized gangsters and anyone in the government CAN NOT be trusted, Then you make the decision when the SHTF how will you react? Get slaughtered or fight back?
Yes 44, I think the key is get into a THRIVAL paradigm and out of the survival paradigm....life IS a state of mind.
I've found figiting IN a good practise by the way...
No need to examine apollo mission photos - flag waved, astrounts on wire, shadows inconsistent, photos composited, fatal radiation passing van allen belts etc etc etc.. No need to analysis any of these.. Just watch the official press conference of the three astraunouts coming back from moon. watch the body language, the behavior. Nervous like little children calling up to the board by the teacher, hardly talking, finishing sentences. Long pauses trying to figure out how to respond simple questions..
There is no way those man -that supposedly accomplised the biggest success of man kind - would be in that kind of mood. Neil Armstrong could not even respond to the question ' did you see any stars during the mission?' How simple is that, prabably the simplest thing to respond and he could not properly answer, desperately asks michael collins if he had seen any stars.. Sorry, but i dont see how a sane person can believe this is real.
Just watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro
Regarding your last sentence-there are so many things like that in our modern world- they found a passport on the ground, if it is not part of the government, then who really owns the Fed, who created ISIS, the war on terror- I just wonder what happens if you make such a thing undeniable to those in deep denial? What happens when there is no denying it? Do people snap and demand change, or slip into terminal despair? I just wonder what it is that makes people train their minds to maintain these lies and delusions and supress naturally occuring doubt. What horrible effect of accepting logic and the truth is this suppression mechanism protecting them from?
it is fear and will power. My wife knows the moon landing is fake. However, she "doesn't want to live in a world where our government would kill it's own people". I have been living with her for 15 years and have heard variations of this phrase many times...she, like many people would just prefer to live in a dream...just like in the Matrix some would prefer to live in the dream world. A significant % of the population would rather live that way.
I realized A LONG time ago, all the stuff they said about Easy Germany, about the Soviets, about the KGB, all applies EVERY BIT AS MUCH to America, as it did to Germany, USSR, etc.
I find it hilarious how if you frame something, like media manipulation and propaganda, in terms of "Do you think they did THIS in the USSR?"
And people will say "Oh, for sure!" And then you ask "So do you think the CIA or American gov't could do the same?"
"AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" *runs away screaming*
Cognitive dissonance is a real bitch.
Well for one thing, everyone feels Lois Lerner will have their balls for breakfast if they step out of line. Cowards. Some of the FFs lost everything.
Yesss, shocking, they looked just miserable, guilty, angry, sad.....
Everyone should watch that bunch of lies. It was a total give-away for me as well.
And then have a good laugh at this, the curiousity rover press conference.
Watching it, I felt insulted, amused, abused and really really angry...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgoORq0AC_8
Aldrin's Law: The more advanced a civilization becomes, the harder it becomes to land on its Moon.
Now that is masterful snark right there...
It never hapened.
Anyone with a half functioning brain cell knows that by now.
What a scam....46 years and counting and still enough fools to give an already over funded TPTB museum more money.
Yet, 18 million children in the US live below the poverty line....
March on, cliff is just around the next bend...
The good thing about Kubrick movies is that they act as a quick IQ litmus test to judge whether somebody is sucking on the blue pill or the red pill.
<<Anyone with a half functioning brain cell knows that by now.>>
Within a moment, you can guess with 99% certainty who is the donkey at the poker table.
----
A local video rental store sells and displays "authentic" movie costumes in cabinets. They had the original outfit John Goodman wore in The Big Lebowsky. You could tell it was the original outfit because the shop owners posted a promotional photo from the movie so customers could compare for themselves.
"that donations over $15,000 will give you the chance to publicly insult Buzz Aldrin and have him punch you in the face à la Bart Sibrel. "
Please explain why I would want to insult Buzz Aldrin? Lured to a California hotel on a pretext of speaking to japanese children's show about space and the moon trip and then asking him to swear on a bible that the pictures and the landing weren't fake? Hell, I think even the Russians have given up thinking it was a conspiracy. And if it was fake why wouldn't we have returned again OR the Russians gone to the moon to expose our trip as being fake.
I sort of feel this last line is an insult to Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and the space program. You get on the end of a huge firecracker and ride up there and LAND and then pray you can get home.
I believe ;-)
Don't go in Room 237.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
If you are able to get an object the size of the Saturn V (365 feet tall) off the ground and to disappear vertically into the space above it becomes very clear that that was the hard part of the mission. This feat of engineering was witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people at the time in person and on TV. Getting to the moon after that point was a piece of cake. One thing we have to remember is that back in the 50's and 60's we had people who were exceptionally talented and smart who worked for NASA. They were able to perform engineering calculations in their heads and on their sliderules that today would take a computer program to solve for any modern wanna-be rocket scientist. This country is not what it used to be when it comes to technology and brains. One only needs to watch the movie "Idiocracy" to see where the world is headed. As George Carlin famously said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs - We lost a national treasure when he died :(
"(Getting) an object the size of the Saturn V off the ground ... was the hard part of the mission. Getting to the moon after that point was a piece of cake." --angryBuddhist
Ouch. OUCH. The degree of ignorance you just displayed must be physically painful.
There's some truth to the first part of that quote. Getting the Saturn V into space is entirely doable with all the resources at Cape Canaveral. But getting it to take off from the moon, even with 1/6 gravity still requires a real launch facility at that end.
When first shown plans of the Apollo mission, Werner Von Braun is rumored to have said that it would not be a problem to land on the moon, but to get home. At least until he got the memo that they would just be orbiting the earth for a week and then splashing down.
I'm curious how a vessel such as the lander, with a total of 200 cubic feet of space, could hold 2 people, and enough fuel to blast off from a planet with no atmosphere. Especially considering that fuel was expended to slow the lander's descent from free-fall to gentle landing.
The burning question is why didn't the space shuttle go there just once in it's entire service ?
Because the truth will out...
You are kidding, right? The f'n space shuttle was designed for low-Earth orbit - to deposit satellites, telescops, and service the space station. The Moon is completely different mission.
Yeah you can do that with a lame TV studio , some slowed down film and ultra crap lighting all totally shining from all the wrong angles.
You need to get so damn mad that you believe the LIE! IT NEVER HAPPENED....
The more adamently you demand that IT NEVER HAPPENED, doesn't make it more or less true.
I love a good conspiracy theory. And I especially love the Shining Kubrick angle on this one...But there are questions that the doubters fail to answer.
1. The published Soviet success with the LLR experiments.
2. Chinese claims of spotting Apollo landing evidence as part of their Chang'e 2 probe scans.
3. The Japanese SELENE probe mapping surface disturbances at the Apollo sites as well.
4. Many independent nations mapping the trajectory of the space flights by triangulating the radio transmission coordinates sent back to earth.
Here are some questions answered by simple knowledge of physics and geometry.
5. Terrain at different pitches often cast shadows at different angles, this has been physically proven over and over again.
6. The flag movement. The flag was folded plastic. This type of material will move when it's unfurling to it's natural state of rest after being unfolded. If you've ever seen a plastic sheet move "on it's own" after it's been opened up. Same effect. The rest of the time the flag doesn't move at all.
7. No stars. The brightness of the lunar surface and exposure settings will not pick up dimmer objects during full daylight on the moon. Ask anyone who understands how a camera works.
8. Van Allen Belt Radation. The dosage measured in the astronauts was consistent with the amount of time they passed through the belt. Yes, the Van Allen Belt contains lethal doses of radiation, but you would need to spend 4 months in the belt to receive that dose.
There's often a willful ignorance that people will adhere to to support their theories. Objectivity requires looking at all evidence presented and being open to the possibility that the explanation can be valid, even if the result proves a particular belief is wrong.
I got swept up in the initial excitement of the hoax narrative because I found it compelling and a great story. But as someone involved in science, truth is the goal, not belief. And there is no smoking gun the moon landing was a hoax. Everything presented as evidence of it being a hoax has a logical explanation based in science which discredits the hoax position.
Anyone can believe whatever they want, but proof is necessary for it to become fact.
Saying astronauts were uncomfortable at a presser is hardly evidence of anything. they aren't actors who are comfortable in front of a camera, they're a bunch of tech geeks.
Objectivity requires looking at all evidence presented and being open to the possibility that the explanation can be valid, even if the result proves a particular belief is wrong.
No doubt, B.
I'm not entirely sure how you consider Soviet, Chinese or Japanese claims to be evidence that we went there, so I don't see why I'd have to explain it away. When Dubya tells me Iraq's got WMDs or OBL orchestrated 9/11 from some Pakistani cave well then it's on him to prove it.
I realize the camera probably wouldn't pick up the stars in the background but then how would you not have another camera to snap pics of the stars or calibrate it to be able to pick them up? How does no one ever bring a telescope to the moon? Zero pictures of stars?!
A plastic flag? Ok...?
THERE ARE PLENTY OF SMOKING GUN EVIDENCES THE MOON LANDING WAS A HOAX, B.
To look at the pictures and say you can ignore the evidence of multiple light sources, the impossible shadow angles and the other photo anomalies is not science. There's not many explanations for doctored pics, and the hundreds more that NASA has released since.
It's not science to look at the clip of the astronaut strung up to a cable and being lifted around and IGNORING THAT SCIENCE. There's only one explanation, far as I can tell.
There's the clip of them in the shuttle, manufacturing a shot of the Earth supposedly through the porthole and yet when the interior of the shuttle is lit up you can see the camera is on one end and they've made a cutout insert for the porthole to get a spherical looking Earth with no shadows. It's pretty clear they're in LEO when they're supposed to be half way to the moon. There's only one explanation for that, far as I can tell.
The clip of the shuttle taking off of the moon? That looks real to you? I mean, c'mon, B!
Gopros pick up stars when lifted by weather baloons above the atmosphere.
Cameras have come a long way in 50 years. I spent years taking astrophotos with film, and the only time you can get ground and stars is after dark.
#41
Multiple light sources were caused by reflections off the surrounding hills. In space there's no atmosphere to cut the travel of light, so reflections are much stronger than on earth. If you've ever spent time in the desert, sand dunes produce a very similar lighting effect.
The clip with the astronaut on the wire is part of training footage that someone spliced into a documentary claiming it was from the actual mission. NASA has a lot of training footage.
The clip with the window shield wasn't to present the earth as far away. They used those to keep heat down in the capsule for the same reason the light on the moon is so strong. In space the sun's rays are far more powerful. Again, it was a piece of footage taken out of context so someone could turn a buck on their movie.
One problem is continuity. NASA has tons of footage from many different exercises and missions, so it's easy to use any piece of footage and say this was from the mission, or this was when they claimed to be this many miles from earth. The onus is on the viewer to do research what these clips actually are.
The shuttle lift off doesn't defy any of the physics of a non-atmospheric low gravity lift off. You don't have the same drag as on earth, so it looks "different" than lift offs here.
Fudomyo only comments on this thread. "They're attacking "the Moon Landings. Wake up the gimp! Release the kraken."
you just answered yourself, "they aren't actors".. tell me this, why would they need to act ? Why not just show some emotion, happiness, excitement maybe, or a relaxation because you came back safely from the most dangerous mission ? they went to the fucking moon for godsake.. Even winning an NBA match causes the players go crazy.. Being a tech geek doesnt mean they are apethetic morons, true tech geeks would go crazy with that kind of a success.. and yet there was not a glimpse of a smile on their faces..
they were scared b-grade actors...that is the problem. I went to MIT and know aero-astro majors....they would be completely geeked up if they had gone to the moon. They are enthusiastic excitable alive humans....not doped up scared tentative dildos.
Why not address a single scientific point I brought up? The best you can do is argue about how YOU think people should emotionally respond to something?
Protocal for NASA astronauts is different than some guy who throws balls through a metal ring for a living.
They were facing the press about an important space mission. Maybe that's why they had a serious demeanor and weren't high fiving like morons at a tail gate party.
Those points you brought up are not really relevant to subject. Do you think people care china approve the authenticity of the apollo mission ? Well maybe they should first explain the air bubbles coming out from the space suits of the astraounts skywalking ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
This is really a joke..
And dont forget you are talking about a country where presidents participate even to the dummest talk shows, it is not north korea. US culture is well suited for an astranout to show any kind of emotion if he wants to. Especially if went to the fuking moon.
Also, observing human reactions and behavior is a scientific point. Body language maybe is not mathematics but it is surely science.
+ 299,792,458
Presidents didn't go on talk shows back then. Everything has become more stupid and crass than it was 50 years ago.
Don't confuse professionalism and the manner people presented themselves in that era with how you would read people's body language today. It doesn't apply.
The Soviets were one of the countries tracking the radio signals. If there was anything they could out the Americans about, especially faking a space mission, they would have done it during the cold war.
zerohedge had a good write up about the faked landing 3 years ago :
cut & paste with the links good - and of course you MUST remember that the gov LOST all the supposed original video & photos of the 1969 event. Oops.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-us-state-department-says-conspiracy-theories-exist-realm-myth#comment-369471
Saturn V (Very Large to hold enough fuel) gets them up to the moon . Here is a photo showing four of the five first-stage engines (of 3 stages):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:S-IC_engines_and_Von_Braun.jpg
And another photo. Hard to undertand how big it is unless you are standing next to it.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.brcweb.com/education/images/apollo/apollo_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.brcweb.com/education/apollo-saturn-V-center.html&usg=__m5jOLmm4TKXE_kt3Bd3WS5oeYG0=&h=428&w=550&sz=95&hl=en&start=103&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=-jmbywEormPPuM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsaturn%2BV%26start%3D90%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1I7GGLL_en%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1
The Saturn V had to work because of all the eye witnesses. No eye witnesses for the lunar landing:
LEM (Very Small because it has to fit in the tip top of the Saturn V) + Command Module gets them up and back to Earth:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/cchoice/lm2/images/lm2_ext2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/cchoice/lm2/lm2.htm&usg=__fqC5UMr8Msq_O58lOmH8c6x6_xU=&h=558&w=640&sz=88&hl=en&start=6&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=eYRT_JadXUvgrM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlunar%2Blanding%2Bmodule%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1I7GGLL_en%26tbs%3Disch:1
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/cchoice/lm2/images/lm2_ext2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/cchoice/lm2/lm2.htm&usg=__fqC5UMr8Msq_O58lOmH8c6x6_xU=&h=558&w=640&sz=88&hl=en&start=6&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=eYRT_JadXUvgrM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlunar%2Blanding%2Bmodule%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1I7GGLL_en%26tbs%3Disch:1
Wow! Great engineering for the 60s. I understand that the moon has only 1/6 the gravity of Earth, although I don't recall those guys jumping very high on the moon (and you won't find any photos), but the LEM is much much much smaller than 1/6 of the Saturn V.
See any evidence of the rocket engine having blasted the soil only a few feet away as it softly touches down?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/moonTrip/vFirstLunarLanding.pdf
Compare with NASA's technology to just land, not return with two men and rocks, but just land a much much smaller remote controlled toy car on a planet with sightly more gravity, Mars. Why didn't they use retro rockets to achieve a soft landing like the LEM? Too much fuel, just to land:
http://marsrover.nasa.gov/technology/is_entry_descent_landing.html
PS:
Darn it, the .gov lost all the evidence (as we became able to digitze, breakdown, slow down, enhance, zoom, and analyze motion pictures with our home computers...
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/04/1154198328978.html
Just show any kid under 12 the footage from the moon and ask them if they think it is fake or real.
I guess you are right, however, and I should just get over it. With the cold war and all that pork $ going to Texas and Florida (large voting blocks) I see no reason for the US.gov to have lied. Do you?
The ascending stage is the much smaller top section, I have sat in one, less than 40% of the dimensions you state, which includes the landing gear. Here is a photo of the LEM with ascending unit attached on the top of the descending unit, plus people for scale:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/cchoice/lm2/images/lm2_ext2.jpg
It is undisputed fact, not opinion, that for the lunar landing to occur the spacecraft shown in this photo must contain all of the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
The new schedule for the lunar landing attempt caught the Soviet Union unprepared. Only three days before the Apollo 11 launch, the Russians launched a hastily assembled Luna 15 space-craft designed to land on the Moon and return a small lunar sample.
I have only rarely wished anyone ill luck with a space mission, but I was relieved to learn that the Russian spacecraft had crashed into the Moon. We would have been greatly disappointed if the Russian mission succeeded in returning a lunar sample to Earth before the Apollo program.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/moonTrip/vFirstLunarLanding.pd
Show me an image taken through one of those telescopes. Just one, please. This says you are wrong.
http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html
Now, maybe they will finally find where they can put enough fuel in the Lunar Landing Module for both the retro-rocket descent and ascent stages.
Apollo 11 missing tapes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, searchThe Apollo 11 missing tapes are missing slow-scan television (SSTV) recordings of the lunar transmissions broadcast during the Apollo 11 moonwalk, which was the first time human beings walked on the Moon. The tapes carried SSTV and telemetry data recorded onto analog data recording tape. The SSTV data was recorded as a backup against any failure of the live television broadcasts.[1] To allow broadcast of the SSTV transmission on standard television, a real-time conversion from SSTV format was done. The converted video of the moonwalk was broadcast live around the world on July 21, 1969 (UTC). Many videotapes and kinescopes were made of this broadcast as it happened, and these have never been missing.[2] Meanwhile, the missing tapes which carried recordings of the SSTV signal as transmitted from the Moon, but before undergoing scan conversion, are believed to have been erased and reused by NASA, along with many thousands of other tapes. (NASA was faced with a shortage of quality data tapes in the early 1980s due to a change in the manufacturing process in the mid 1970s. This caused tapes that were no longer needed to be reused.)[1] If the original SSTV format tapes were found, modern technology could be easily and cheaply used to make a higher-quality conversion, yielding better images than those originally seen. There are several still photographs, along with a few short segments of super 8 movie film taken of a video monitor in Australia, which show the SSTV transmission before it was converted.
In 2009 NASA gathered old copies of the converted video and paid to have them processed by Lowry Digital. These restorations were released in 2010.
In addition to the laundry list of stuff that had to fit inside the lunar lander, on subsequent trips, how did they manage to stuff in a moon buggy built on a ladder frame (pick-up truck) base?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp9Y8I6v_Ds
NASA/ESA ISS station fakery. ISS is a Suicidal Hellhole and Hoax. International Fake Stationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpjE_FzIZBQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKbwdTCL8rA
I love you guys.
I grew up in the "I want to believe" era of The X-Files, so believe me, I know the power of propaganda.
I find people have trouble accepting that the moon landing was faked, primarily because the lift-off was real. Probably even the Earth orbit was legit. But TLI? Unlikely. Descent to the Moon? Unlikely. Actually embarking on the Moon, and taking videos and photos? Hoax, flat out. Took me a long time to put together the pieces of how the fake was technically pulled off.
People will say blue-screen didn't exist, but in fact it did, it was just still in early stages. But a lot of Front Screen Projection was used as well. Why do you think Stanley was so afraid to leave his property, and get on an airplane, at the latter stages of life?
The best evidence must surely be the lack of jumping, the ridiculous 'sun' (look for reflections in the visors, mainly), that no country (!) has been back for 42 years +, and even if a program was started today, it would take us longer, than the Apollo program did back in the late 60s!
And yes, it ties in with the JFK assassination, RFK, MLK, Vietnam War, draft, My Lai massacre (which people only found out about around the time of Apollo 12).
Why all the numerology and occult symbols, also?
Kubrick and the Moon Landings: http://www.reactorbreach.com/showthread.php?tid=4891
And it also blows open the Cold War... see the work of Anthony Sutton.
Lot of disinformation out there, just like about the JFK assassination... Hmmm....