Moon landings

[DarianF]

58 minutes ago, endfreemasonscum said:

I would not do that. It is absolutely from nasa. They call it the apollo 11 lunar module or Lunar Module Eagle.

 

And you are not the first. Everyone I show that to who sees it for the first time have the exact same reaction. They are laughing their masonic asses off.

 

Okay, stepping out of fantasy land for a minute, here's something you failed to include in your post...

 

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM10HandbookVol1.pdf

 

Ouch.

[alexa]

3 hours ago, DarianF said:

 

 

 

& 7:12 the moon looks like a close up of big lump of cheese 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by alexa

[peter]

17 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

& 7:12 the moon looks like a close up of big lump of cheese 

 

I think my hypothesis of the inverse relationship between IQ and stupid memes and posts is actually holding up rather well ,it looks like in the not to distant future it will be elevated to the lofty heights of a provable theory

Edited March 18, 2022 by peter

[Mr. Nice]

9 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

That's not close to fair. But in all seriousness...

 

Just look at the state of that! If someone dry-walled your house like that you'd lose it.

 

 

This engineering marvel was built by these guys:

 

 

Here it is without the cladding for micro-meteorites, and very expensive heat dispersion/ reflection foil!

 

 

Another whackamole, Apollo-conspiracy-by-numbers moment. Let's put it into perspective. NASA didn't even design this craft and if it was faked, the entire Grumman team built a machine not fit for purpose and there was an awful lot of them! Plus, why didn't NASA make their craft a work of visual art for the pictures.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Mr. Nice

[Mr. Nice]

3 hours ago, alexa said:

& 7:12 the moon looks like a close up of big lump of cheese 

 

Thank you for your stunning and insightful argument. I have no answer to it. Well, if you ignore that the Moon looks exactly like that from every space mission in history that has photographed it, that is.

[Mr. Nice]

7 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

I would not do that. It is absolutely from nasa. They call it the apollo 11 lunar module or Lunar Module Eagle.

 

And you are not the first. Everyone I show that to who sees it for the first time have the exact same reaction. They are laughing their masonic asses off.

 

It is NOT from NASA. It was built by Northrop Grumman and you are a repeater of other people's claims. You also appear to be ignoring where I am giving your posts a good kicking.

[Mr. Nice]

9 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

Science & Exploration

Surviving extreme conditions in space

27/07/2004 65368 views 316 likes

ESA / Science & Exploration / Space Science / Extreme space

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 though

[peter]

26 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

Please do tell, because nobody has any idea what you are talking about.

That's all right ,either does he ,so at least all of us are in the same boat.

Edited March 18, 2022 by peter

[Mr. Nice]

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?

Edited March 18, 2022 by Mr. Nice

[DaleP]

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

Trust broken.

[Mr. Nice]

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!

[Mr. Nice]

On 3/17/2022 at 3:20 PM, DaleP said:

 

How long does it take to reach the Moon?

 

In what?

[DaleP]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

 

In what?

 

On an average rocket of course!

[Mr. Nice]

8 minutes ago, DaleP said:

 

On an average rocket of course!

 

What course? Apollo?  Low energy transfer? Hohmann transfer orbit? 

 

A survey of ballistic transfers to low lunar orbit (nasa.gov)

[endfreemasonscum]

 

 

To nasa's credit here, they really stepped their game up by apollo 16...

It actually seems that their drywalling technology got worse. And this is billions and billions of dollars later.

 

[peter]

8 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

 

 

To nasa's credit here, they really stepped their game up by apollo 16...

It actually seems that their drywalling technology got worse. And this is billions and billions of dollars later.

 

You have really stepped your game up now, if at first you don't succeed double down with the same stupid crap, you obviously haven't heard of my new inverse proportional IQ hypothesis. You have certainly revealed your true colors, FE ,fake moon landings, soon it will be gravity doesn't exist and I bet we can all look forward to rockets don't propel in space at a later date. I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt  but alas in my opinion another Richard Cranium has just revealed his or herself. If I'm wrong I apologize but look up I believe you will notice the mythical Fu Bird circling as we speak 

Edited March 19, 2022 by peter

[Mr. Nice]

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.

[Mr. Nice]

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. 

 

 

 

[Mr. Nice]

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!

[endfreemasonscum]

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

[Mr. Nice]

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.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Mr. Nice

[sock muppet]

On 3/17/2022 at 2:33 PM, endfreemasonscum said:

The Eagle Never landed

 

One small step for man...................

 

One Giant FRAUD for Mankind!

 

THE DEMONS WILL NEVER GET INTO THE HEAVENS!

 

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.

[sock muppet]

8 hours ago, Mr. Nice said:

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.

 

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?

[Mr. Nice]

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? 

[Mr. Nice]

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.