Jump to content

Mr. Nice

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mr. Nice

  1. Just now, sock muppet said:

    So lets back track for a mo, you say tinfoil can stop intense radiation is this correct?


    Let's examine that statement. There is no intense radiation and they didn't use tinfoil.

  2. Just now, sock muppet said:

    What with your statements, which has no substance at all within them.


    You appear to be just trolling. Make your case, but use things you don't appear to be aware off like facts and citations. What do I actually need to say in response to somebody just attention seeking.

  3. Just now, sock muppet said:

    A fleas fart would do an enormous amount of damage to a potting shed upon encountering it particularly at a high rate of velocity.


    Is this what you are going to do? Answer the post or choose a subject you know something about.

  4. 1 minute ago, sock muppet said:

    I could always go to the Apollo theater in London, might actually learn something there on how to suspend reality for the audience.


    Or you could go and read up on the matter and actually learn why you have been suckered.

  5. Just now, sock muppet said:

    The stuff you encounter when you leave the protective shield of Earths magnetic field that radiation, in space it is everywhere particularly UV, which should of played havoc with the electrical systems on board the potting shed of a spaceship they were in, that radiation or do you think space is just a vacuum?


    Ultra violet? Lol, seriously? Attenuated by the hull, you think it goes through aluminium and steel?


    Is this ireally your level of understanding on space radiation ?

  6. 4 minutes ago, sock muppet said:

    They went, they did some shopping, and sent back an empty module, well not quite empty as they had to shovel rocks and stuff into the module, hit the return button and crack open a beer as they watched the thing disappear from view, 


    They went, brought back 842lbs of samples that cannot be faked.


    4 minutes ago, sock muppet said:

    because of the intense radiation they were dead anyway, and if they were to return the public would have been rightly horrified at what they looked like upon return, Van Allen belts ring any bells for you,


    What intense radiation bullshit is this? Van Allen belt? They skirted the weaker areas on a 30 degree elevated trajectory that when incorporating the tilt of the Earth bypassed the more denser areas. Otherwise they would have had bad dose and been ill for a few days.


    What have you got on the matter? Some made up shite from a hoax film? Did you read about this on some hoax believer's blog?


    4 minutes ago, sock muppet said:

    plus there is the Moons atmosphere which seriously puzzles me how it landed in one piece, 


    What bloody atmosphere? It's as strong as flea's fart! Just because it puzzles YOU, doesn't mean it puzzled the smart people who put it down.


    4 minutes ago, sock muppet said:

    but still there is a re-education center for someone like me that you can direct me to, oh and of course those mason's never lie do they, and it's not like them to keep a secret at all, and they do like a sacrifice every now and then to spice things up a little, and let's not forget how they love signalling with their number games to the whole world in front of it's nose, tut tut, that's got absolutely everything to do with coincidence, and i am sure you can dismiss all of this with ease.


    Conspiracy guff. If you want some education on Apollo, I can recommend some websites for you or you can post your cut and paste hoax-by-numbers here and I'll show you why it's all bollocks.


  7. 29 minutes ago, ink said:

    Thus they do have it .... and the first quote is incorrect.

    Again .... this means that the first quote is incorrect.


    Whoah there. I didn't Say Petit was accurate. I just took him literally in the same way as the daft conspiracy claimant and explained the situation. Now if he had said, we don't have the hardware anymore, THAT would be more accurate. 


    29 minutes ago, ink said:

    Which states that there is better technology to do the same job .... so going to the moon should be simpler than back then.


    Our survey says uuuu-uuurghh. Saying the technology used in 1969 was outdated doesn't mean we have purpose built, tested crafts to fly and land there already built right now. Sure it would be easier now, with the right investment. All the hard work was done in 1969 and much of the basis for today's methodology was established then. Orion was built fairly quickly and seems to be uo for the job but a new lander needs some work. Of course we could loosely model the new stuff on Apollo, but what are we trying to do? Repeat it? What for? Better it, needs some work.


    29 minutes ago, ink said:

    So .... back then men were men and would risk life and limb .... but now any exploration is governed by soyboys who "lost the tech but we now have better because that old stuff is outdated ".he window at times.


    Don Petit isn't the spokesperson for the situation.  They have better potential, but your inaccurate claim that they already have it is nonsense.


    29 minutes ago, ink said:

    Sorry? .... To re-develop NEW machinery! 

    I don't think that you remake something which is new .... thus the statement is meaningless!


    Yes, redevelop NEW machinery. You take the old and create a newer version of it, once that works better and safer. The statement "the statement is meaningless" is actually meaningless.


    29 minutes ago, ink said:

    2/10 .... c- .... Must try harder .... Has some skill for this subject but loses focus and stares out the window at times.


    0/10 Looks like some pretty off topic irrelevant guff there old boy. Don't try harder, just give up - we went.

  8. 18 minutes ago, sock muppet said:


    So having complete control over the MSM is something not of substance, it's funny but i am pretty sure we just witnessed some of the most blatant bullshit being pumped out of the idiot box on a global level, and i am wondering if it was just coincidental, but i am sure you can direct to the nearest re-education centre?


    No. YOUR bare assertions and seriously odd observations are of no substance.


    I don't even know what you are referring to just above. This thread is about the Apollo Moon landings.

  9. 36 minutes ago, sock muppet said:


    Sorry but the we used to have the technology is laughable, you really can not make this a reason to be taken seriously, it is itself laughable!


    That there are dead Astronauts on the Moon!!!.?


    Baffling. The "we destroyed the technology" line is correctly interpreted is it? Did you even read my full reply.


    What are you even talking about...dead astronauts on the Moon? 

  10. 28 minutes ago, sock muppet said:


    I am going to enter the lions den of a thread here and would like to put another perspective of what was said:

    Houston tranquility base here, the EVIL has landed.

    That's one small step for Man, one LYING leap for Mankind, coff splutter coff coff.


    And i posted this in another thread but it actually belongs here.

    But a good question though of 'What side of Earth does the Moon see?', i would argue the very worst side from the lying thieving scum bags that Earth has to offer, shame really how they always get to do what they want and fuk it up for the rest of us, oh well.


    And don't forget that Nasa is T minus, and as for how it was done well don't forget Project Gemini, the twins in Astrological parlance, which means there were two missions, and there you have it total bullshit presented in a way they want to the whole World, see my entry above from the other thread, as for the so called Lunar lander even though it looks like a pile of rubbish, and it is, it only really needs to have one function of being airtight and able to stay in one piece, but how it survived the atmosphere on the Moon upon landing is a complete mystery to me.


    I read it a few times and missed anything of substance. Thanks for sharing your rather unusual observations though.

  11. 6 minutes ago, sock muppet said:


    Um, that USED to have it, statement is ambiguous, in what way is this meant, as in no longer available because the materials used can not be found on Earth anymore, or, USED to have it meaning the materials are now far in excess with what we have now, which basically means it's easy, or, just can't be bothered because the shocking and awful truth would have to be revealed of what actually took place?


    Um? We used to have the technology. That is all the necessary equipment. Amazing how you can take that statement and fail to understand it.


    What shocking and awful truth? This whole hogwash claim suggests Petit is saying we didn't go because of some crazy contrived interpretation of his meaning.


    Why? You wanna debate this? 

  12. 2 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

    The freemason, nazi psychopaths killed these men for their stupid PSYOP.




    No they didn't. Grissom hung a lemon on the Command Module simulator because it was experiencing a whole range of issues, not least communications and also keeping it in sync with latest updates being done. They simply later worked through them all. We have footage in space showing the Command Module working as designed, with weightless experiments, so your argument, as always , is a lot of conspiracy guff.


    NASA - soopah secret meeting:

    Evil overlord Nazi baby eater boss: Hey, that Grissom criticised Boeing's craft

    Subservient Nazi: Yes, shall we take him off the program

    Evil overlord Nazi baby eater boss:  No kill him and his crew.

    Subservient Nazi: Ye sir, we will arrange for a mishap.

    Evil overlord Nazi baby eater boss: No! Set fire to the Command Module!

    Subservient Nazi: But that will set us back years and the program might get cut.

    Evil overlord Nazi baby eater boss: Bwahahahahaha  


    On a personal note, don't you think it a little cowardly to ignore where you are getting an arse kicking? How sad.

  13. 11 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:



    Explain where. I replied to this already and you ran away:


    Since you haven't actually got any proof and I do. it's best that I kick this one sided debate off huh? 


    NASA received 25.4 billion funding. Now I'm positive that you have no idea how that money was spent. NASA virtually subcontracted the whole lot out to a whole number of companies!


    The big stuff:

    Lunar Module development - Northrop Grumman

    Saturn V - Boeing

    Rockets - Rocketdyne

    Command Module - North American Aviation

    Lunar Rover - Boeing

    Spacesuits - ILC Dover (Playtex)


    Then we had the tools used developed by Black and Decker, Headsets and comms. developed by Polytronic (now Poly). Data Uplink system developed by Motorola. Fuel cells developed by Pratt and Whitney(then United Aircraft). Cryogenic gas storage developed by Beechcraft (then Beech Aircraft). Oxidiser tanks developed by General Motors. Timers and clocks developed by Hammond Organ co. Stabilisation system developed by Honeywell.



    Round 1, you just get knocked out dude. Unless you have got something to get off the floor with!

    • Like 1
  14. 10 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:





    Spam, already addressed by me and ignored by you. See a few post above. This is basically the typical moon hoax believer. Keep your head down, avoid all replies and spam the hoax-by-numbers. 





  15. 10 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:



    Spam, endless spam. Don Petit 


    We USED to have it. Which part of that confuses you? We don't have it anymore for a whole variety of reasons. But here are some pointers for you to ignore, like you are doing:

    • The blueprints for all machinery are held at the Marshall Space Centre. 
    • People on the internet sometimes print schematics and build models.
    • The technology is outdated.
    • Modern space travel has far more stringent safety standards.
    • It IS a very long process to re-develop new machinery and fully test it.
  16. 2 minutes ago, Luvapottamus said:

    Mylar doesn't completely help with the cell towers. I'm electrically hypersensitive, and mylar doesn't really help enogh.


    Must we really do this apples and oranges straight out the gate? Microwave radiation in close proximity to a cell tower bears no resemblance whatsoever to space radiation - specifically the charged particles within the VAR.


    2 minutes ago, Luvapottamus said:

    When I buy a bag of doritos it's lined with mylar. Why? To keep the corn chips freash  How./why?

    Well without the mylar they go bad from the radiation.....


    Utter nonsense. The packaging is to stop moisture and atmospheric spoiling.


    1 hour ago, endfreemasonscum said:




    Proof you are spamming the debunked to death hoax by numbers. This particular one, I reckon over the years, I have personally addressed about 50 times. It's like the longest game of Whackamole in history, with none of the moles able to learn a bloody thing.


    Patrick Moore asked the astronauts something very specific. He asked them:


    "I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?"


    Now Michael Collins who was part of the Solar Corona photography saw none and this is entirely expected! As for seeing stars in broad daylight, on the Moon, through 3 layers (infrequently 2) layers of visor - you need to dark adapt your eyes.


    That section is proof that YOU don't listen and are easily led by others equally afflicted.


    1 hour ago, endfreemasonscum said:

    We know for certain that the above is fake as clouds do not stick in one place forever.


    This is the DSCOVR sequence showing the Lunar transit from a million miles away! Clouds move at a local level and are seen to do so, but massive weather systems that we see on the globe move very slowly. Another total fail.


    No wonder you aren't replying to any of my postspuck-puck-puckarrghh-cowardly-arse.png 



  18. 32 minutes ago, DaleP said:

    We found out that they didn't go to the Moon back in the 60s but they told us so.

    Trust broken.


    Ok, so you want to dump bullshit in the thread. There is a thread to discuss the Moon landings, enter it and I will kick your arse.


    Specifics, not Apollo related unless you absolutely must!

  19. Ok people, I see this a lot around these parts. So offer me your best evidence. What the hell is this problem with NASA?


    If you feel the need to post a video (ONE AT A TIME please) , itemise the best bits and why and for crying out loud, be prepared to honestly defend it - instead of the customary scuttle away and pretend you haven't seen it. Here's the thing. When somebody says there are loads of things proving something and each "thing" you look at turns out to be a load of lies, poor observation, bare assertion or just bad research, then the "load of things" suddenly becomes NO things. Nothing.


    I'll start with the only thing I am aware of - the cover up of the faults with the Challenger launch vehicle.  One swallow does not make a summer. It is inevitable that in any organisation over decades that you get some bad decisions. I need not list many companies who have crapped on their own doorstep just to make more sales.


    What have you got?

    • Haha 1
  20. 22 minutes ago, Luvapottamus said:

    I'd enjoy that. Let's debate it. We're both pro-space exploration correct? It seems I'm a Johnny come lately to the thread here. I'm pro-space program. but want to clear up the lies....

    Let's debate....


    There are no lies.


    4 minutes ago, Luvapottamus said:

    I'm confident we can repell/tunnel Van Allen Fields.


    But we need truth in science.


    We didn't do it yet did we?




    Yes we did. I showed you the trajectory taken. Explain exactly why the shielding on the CSM was insufficient and explain why the trajectory provably taken (by photography and tracking) would cause danger.

  21. 9 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

    Science & Exploration

    Surviving extreme conditions in space

    27/07/2004 65368 views 316 likes

    Space is one of the most extreme environments imaginable. Above the insulating atmosphere of the Earth, spacecraft are subjected to extremes of temperature, both hot and cold, and a significantly increased threat of radiation damage. The first extreme condition a spacecraft has to deal with is that of launch. The rocket that places the spacecraft into orbit will also shake it violently and batter it with extremely loud sound waves.


    Either of these phenomena can shatter delicate pieces of equipment and so engineers always build a thermal and structural model of the spacecraft and test it. They simulate the conditions of launch using the vibration table and acoustic chamber at ESA's European Space Technology Centre (ESTEC) in The Netherlands.


    Temperatures in space can range from the extremely cold, hundreds of degrees below freezing, to many hundreds of degrees above – especially if a spacecraft ventures close to the Sun. Although there is no air in space, energy is carried by radiation, usually coming from the Sun, that causes heating when it is absorbed by spacecraft, planets or other celestial bodies....https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Extreme_space/Surviving_extreme_conditions_in_space


    And the whole docking thing? What again is the Earth doing during this time?


    I just showed you the craft without cladding - point out where it was unable to do any of the above.


    9 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

    And the whole docking thing? What again is the Earth doing during this time?


    Please do tell, because nobody has any idea what you are talking about. I do feel a muttley-moment coming on thoughmuttley-for-imbeciles.gif

  • Create New...