Jump to content

Moon landings


peter
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Kezzy said:

It's comprehensive in that it repeats items that have been soundly debunked literally 20 years ago.

 

Debunking means nothing other than that an apologist is trying to convince people that the material is of no value.

 

The "adjustment" of Earth-Moon Lagrange L1 is the first clue that NASA can't be trusted to be up-front about the technical challenges of getting a man to the moon and back using the rocket technology of the 1960's.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA exist as obfuscation, nothing more, nothing less. Rockets are not the most efficient mode of travel and many thousands of people are fully aware of that fact. NASA is a psyop, and a way to siphon money for the more exotic research not done in the public eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheConsultant said:

NASA exist as obfuscation, nothing more, nothing less. Rockets are not the most efficient mode of travel and many thousands of people are fully aware of that fact. NASA is a psyop, and a way to siphon money for the more exotic research not done in the public eye.

 

Very interesting theories, but unfortunately the vast majority of NASA funding is used directly with sub-contractors engaged to build their machinery. It's a very grandiose idea that NASA has magical travel capabilities, or even that "thousands of people" know about it - but just made up I'm afraid.

 

There are plans in the pipeline for various rocket powers that are far more efficient and yet to be fully tested. There is iodine for rockets already in space and this:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200430113007.htm

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, theo102 said:

Debunking means nothing other than that an apologist is trying to convince people that the material is of no value.

 

Pick something specifically that you feel has not been debunked and debate why my response to it doesn't have merit. The claims made about Apollo have all been debunked, soundly many times, it is not my fault or anyone else's that you do not accept the response.

 

20 minutes ago, theo102 said:

The "adjustment" of Earth-Moon Lagrange L1 is the first clue that NASA can't be trusted to be up-front about the technical challenges of getting a man to the moon and back using the rocket technology of the 1960's.

 

Explain in detail why that is? L1 and L2 (and L3) are notoriously unstable anyway, what possible significance do they have.

 

 

 

Edited by Kezzy
typo
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Kezzy said:

Very interesting theories, but unfortunately the vast majority of NASA funding is used directly with sub-contractors engaged to build their machinery. It's a very grandiose idea that NASA has magical travel capabilities, or even that "thousands of people" know about it - but just made up I'm afraid.

Having worked on some of the woo woo myself I politely beg to differ. 

NASA is a proxy for far more interesting things.

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Having worked on some of the woo woo myself I politely beg to differ. 

NASA is a proxy for far more interesting things.

 

Sounds interesting, what have you got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Not publicly no.

 

Ok, whatever.

 

7 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

A brain that understands physics.

 

Then prove it with something more tangible. I understand physics, do you claim Apollo is faked? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kezzy said:

 

Ok, whatever.

 

 

Then prove it with something more tangible. I understand physics, do you claim Apollo is faked? 

Not claiming anything in regards to fake moon landings or travel no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Kezzy said:

Pick something specifically that you feel has not been debunked and debate why my response to it doesn't have merit. The claims made about Apollo have all been debunked, soundly many times, it is not my fault or anyone else's that you do not accept the response.

Pure apologetics. You have no way of knowing what all the possible claims are.

 

Quote

Explain in detail why that is?


Newtonian gravitation hasn't changed. If L1 wasn't where it was predicted to be based on that, then it's not a sufficient model to describe the forces that a rocket will experience going to the moon and back. If the model is wrong then that's news, but NASA never made that claim. Saying that it's unreliable is mere hand-waving, the difference between predicted and actual values were not insignificant.

Edited by theo102
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

1) This is me reacting to you calling rules on others. https://i.ibb.co/JyPwD0Z/muttley-for-imbeciles.gif

 

You have been exposed as a nasa shill on other boards as you intentionally destroy every single thread bringing their crimes to light.

 

2) Considering your history, anyone who bothers explaining anything to you at this point needs their head examined.

 

 

Good advice. No need to feed the trolls. They have been sent back under their bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

💙 Not sure where I am pulling this information from. Take it or leave it. 💙

 

 

 

WHAT IS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MOON LANDINGS?

 

THE MOON LANDINGS WERE STAGED. THE APOLLO PROGRAM WAS A STAGED EVENT. IT IS PROGRAMMING. "APOLLO" IS PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE. THE APOLLO PROGRAM WAS A MIND-CONTROL PROGRAM TO CONTROL YOUR THOUGHTS. TO MISDIRECT YOU, TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION AWAY FROM WHAT IS HAPPENING IN TRUE REALITY. SPACE TRAVEL IS OLD HAT. >>LOOK OVER HERE, WE ARE GOING TO THE MOON!<< SPACE TRAVEL IS HAPPENING ALL AROUND YOU, ALL THE TIME. IT IS OCCURING AT A FREQUENCY THAT YOU DO NOT SEE OPTICALLY, A HIGHER FREQUENCY THAT IS ALSO MODULATED. THIS IS WHY UFOS SEEM ETHEREAL, PARANORMAL, BUT IT IS TECHNOLOGICAL. THE TECHNOLOGY, THE SCIENCE, IS NOT MYSTERIOUS OR MAGICAL OR INCOMPREHENSIBLE. THE TECHNOLOGY, THE SCIENCE, IS WELL UNDERSTOOD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to follow up on what I posted above. (Even if I am making this up, at least, it is food for thought.) But I am thinking that it could be that we went to the moon and staged it, both happened. There was some propaganda, fake footage, and there was some authentic footage? Look, I have no fucking clue, I am as stupid as the rest of you, basically. (Probably not quite that stupid, actually.) But, uh, anyway, what I do believe is that the misdirection scenario is likely and makes sense to me, logically. Anyway, take care, I will continue washing my dirty dishes and hopefully realise what is what in the process of doing my chores. I am probably just going to keep dumping my thoughts from now on -- and sort out the details later.

 

💙

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, hardtruthspitta said:

NO SHIT!

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FT5GecxUcAEWScN?format=png&name=small

 

That's kind of selective. They did just come out of 2 weeks quarantine so I'm betting they were not as hyped as they were when they got off the recovery helicopter:-

Apollo_11_quaraintine+%25281%2529.jpg

 

Please watch this video, it gives a more accurate view on their demeanour:-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, hardtruthspitta said:

NO SHIT!

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FT5GecxUcAEWScN?format=png&name=small

Or maybe, just maybe they were sick and tired of being dragged from pillar to post and asked the same stupid questions by journalists . Since I don't know I would have to ask was this particular photo taken at a media event  or at a meeting with scientists and the like  as Aldrin is clearly looking through notes or maybe the photos have been doctored to push a certain narrative, as I said I simply don't know ,and I would hazard a guess  that hardtruthspitta doesn't either, the context in which the photos were taken is paramount and as such conjecture and opinion means absolutely nothing

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, peter said:

Or maybe, just maybe they were sick and tired of being dragged from pillar to post and asked the same stupid questions by journalists .

nope, they never went and its from a famous live broadcast. i think it was right around when they were having differences of opinion over whether they could see stars or not lol

 

the lesson here is to get your story straight before the cameras come on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, hardtruthspitta said:

nope, they never went and its from a famous live broadcast.

 

Of course they went and six times successfully. It's from the post landing press conference.

 

You used an image that paints a false narrative of the event and you didn't respond to my post:-

 

Apollo+11+crew+at+press+conference.jpg

 

They look quite thrilled to me, what do you think?

 

49 minutes ago, hardtruthspitta said:

i think it was right around when they were having differences of opinion over whether they could see stars or not lol

 

You are just repeating falsehoods that others have already written about and debunked. There was no disagreement about stars - the question was concerning the visibility of stars in the Solar corona (they took images of this when the Moon eclipsed the Sun. Collins was part of this experiment and replied that he had not seen any :-

 

Patrick Moore asked this at the Press Conference-
"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?"
 

49 minutes ago, hardtruthspitta said:

the lesson here is to get your story straight before the cameras come on

 

No, the lesson is to do proper research on this matter and not repeat the mistakes made by other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, hardtruthspitta said:

nope, they never went and its from a famous live broadcast. i think it was right around when they were having differences of opinion over whether they could see stars or not lol

 

the lesson here is to get your story straight before the cameras come on

It's obvious that the conclusion reached (they never went) is based  on the demeanor of the astronauts by someone with an opinion and because you obviously believe they never went you have regurgitated the same line

1 which famous live broadcast, I haven't seen it so I don't know but maybe they were having a bad day  or a reporter asked them a dumb question but that is one frame taken out of an entire live broadcast, I had a great day at my wedding but by the end of it I told the photographer to fuck off because I had had enough, if he had taken a picture then that single photo could have been used to give a totally different impression on proceedings

2 lets be honest ,you don't know weather they actually went or not  you have an opinion ,which is well and good  but that is all it is, an opinion after all and that photo you put up as some form of evidence, really doesn't cut it when you think about it 

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...