Faking the moon landing impossible

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Let me assist you !
Explaination about the appearing cracks.
1 Contrary to your and other globular statements NASA has completey faked a cosmic-earth live performance proving that certain marketing goals seem more important than presenting scientifically accurate reflections about the environment in outerspace and how real communication works with outerspace. Taking into consideration the speed (17.600. Km/h) and time delay.

2 Contrary to the claims you and your fellow NASA endorsee have made, NASA destroyed all technologies to make it possible to go back to the moon.
It is a longlist of nonsense in defence of the supposed technologies that are all archived and well known. It seems that NASA themselves strongly disagrees with this fantasy.

3 Your claims about the Greeks knowing that the earth was a globe, + tilt and precise calculated size considering their tools are bizare since the Greeks believed that ships dissapeared over the horizon based on eyesight only.
Not taking into account looming, lensing, refraction as we do today . Bringing back a ship through optic zoom is proof of our limited eyesight.
Despite all Greek accomplishments, we cannot take their idea about the shape of our earth serious, because their other claims (boats over the curvature) show their conclusions were a bit premature.That is not how the scientific method works and the Greeks should no longer be part of the rational debate about earth's shape, because you only want a rational debate. Not about religion or gut feeling.
Start youself with leaving the Greeks at peace.

• Most, though not quite all in the early "church" took the earth to be a Globe, albeit a stationary one at the centre of the universe.
  
  Look up the writings of the "Venerable Bede" and many others.
• And in the early Islamic community, the earth was taken to be a sphere, again a stationary one at the centre of the universe.
  
  Look up the writings of Al-Ma'mun, Al-Farghānī and Al-Biruni.

Conclusion:
NASA has failed as trustworthy organisation that has completely failed to preserve the greatest achievements of mankind and has showed marketing nonsense from the ISS more than once.

Also the Greeks could never scientiffically proof the shape of our earth, because of their limited tools and other nonsical observations about boats' mast slowly sinking behind the curvature.

With the Greeks and NASA out of the way as trustworthy sources of our globe, i wonder what the next source will be ?

Who scientifically is trustworthy and has come forward with repeatable and tested proof for a spinning globe ?
Looking forward to your next exhibets !!!

So you claim.

You claim that "NASA destroyed all technologies to make it possible to go back to the moon."
They did not "destroyed all technologies". They just did not preserve the old hardware, that they would not use now anyway.

So you claim. But the early Greeks just started it .....

And even if you managed to demolish NASA, the numerous other space agencies and the hundreds of companies using satellite technology, 

what have you managed to do?

The earth is still a Globe, as has been known for ages. Keep wasting your time pretending you are getting somewhere!

But, even if you managed to convince everyone thst the the earth really is flat, you still do not have a working flat earth model!
Not even a map or any idea of the "continental layout" - it's a laughable situation really.

If you withdraw from any NASA proofs or ancient proof based on invalid measurements, i will debate the inconsistancies within the flatearth model with you.
If you keep pointing towards the Greeks and NASA then i'm afraid we use different standards of truth finding my friend !

If you withdraw from any NASA proofs or ancient proof based on invalid measurements, i will debate the inconsistancies within the flatearth model with you.
If you keep pointing towards the Greeks and NASA then i'm afraid we use different standards of truth finding my friend !

If you withdraw from any NASA proofs or ancient proof based on invalid measurements, i will debate the inconsistancies within the flatearth model with you.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 06, 2017, 05:20:53 AM

So you claim.

NASA claims that they can't go back to the moon, because of destroyed technology and a painfull process to built it back again.
See ?? Not dutchy's claim.
Those claims are the total opposite of those from the NASA fanboys camp, that claim that NASA (apart from some Apollo 11 data),has in fact archived all important Apollo data...and so did the major construtors of those days.
Either NASA is lying or you fanboys are spouting nonsence......which is it ?

Quote

You claim that "NASA destroyed all technologies to make it possible to go back to the moon."
They did not "destroyed all technologies". They just did not preserve the old hardware, that they would not use now anyway.

What a lot of crap,...Didn't you read what Don Petitt claims ? NASA Astronaut Don Pettit claims :

I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond...
The problem is, we don't have the technology to do that anymore
We used to, but we ahhh destroyed that technology and ohhh it's a painfull process to built it back again
But going to mars should be one of the next steps that humans do

He clearly didn't talk about the hardware, but the technology behind the Apollo program...., because rebuilding hardware using the original archived data and blueprints is done in a few months.
Without the data and blueprints it is what Don Petitt says : it's a painfull process to built it back again
With the original data and blueprints well known and archieved by NASA and former constructors (claimed over here on several occasions by the fanboys) it takes a few months instead of a painfull process.

And you want to discuss ''flatearth'' with me ? After showing contempt and distraction techniques to avoid the obvious ? Namely that you+fanboys and NASA have a total different take on what NASA still knows and is able to re-use from the Apollo moonlanding project to reanimate a moonlanding program !!

Quote

So you claim. But the early Greeks just started it .....

What did the Greeks start ?
Trying to wrap their heads around the model of our earth.
In doing so they had limited means.
Some seem plausible (measuring shadows)
Others completely off (seeing ships drop over the visible curvature with eyesight only)

The Greeks did not have accurate scientific tools to proof anything about earth's shape with real scientific research in mind.
There is nothing more to say about the ancient Greeks and their supposed knowledge about earth's shape........you are just cherry picking about what seems convinient for your globe based invalid Greek research.
That is not how the discussion should continue.
If you withdraw from any NASA proofs or ancient proof based on invalid measurements, i will debate the inconsistancies within the flatearth model with you.
If you keep pointing towards the Greeks and NASA then i'm afraid we use different standards of truth finding my friend !

You don't get to gatekeep the boundaries of the argument or what evidence is allowed. You don't get to eliminate sources of evidence just because they are inconvenient to your argument.

If you're going to cherrypick hyperbole from an astronaut, let's look at what he said. Regardless of the completely untrue argument that all the data have been destroyed and no blueprints exist thanks to those evil bad guys at NASA here's what he said:

"We don't have the technology any more".

Any more.

So they had it when they went to the moon. You're effectively arguing that they didn't go to the moon because they went to the moon.

Why not see if you can find a statement anywhere from Pettit that says "We didn't go to the moon at all". In the interview you cherrypick he actually says "we should go back to the moon."

Back.

If you think he's speaking the truth, then you have to accept that we went.

Try coming up with some actual evidence that the blueprints to build the Apollo hardware have been destroyed, or that wasn't capable of doing the job for which it was designed, or that the calculations of the ancient Greeks are incorrect.

Maybe give this a read:

https://www.amazon.com/Moon-Lander-Developed-Smithsonian-Spaceflight/dp/1588342735

you could learn something.

It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.

It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 04:23:38 AM

It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.

Spot on !!!

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 04:23:38 AM

It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.

Spot on !!!

Quote from: dutchy on May 07, 2017, 10:24:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 04:23:38 AM

It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.

Spot on !!!

Why do people keep thinking that NASA is in the space rocket business?  They aren't.  They're in the space exploration business.  There's a difference.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on May 07, 2017, 12:54:27 AM

You don't get to gatekeep the boundaries of the argument or what evidence is allowed. You don't get to eliminate sources of evidence just because they are inconvenient to your argument.

Of course i can decide not to debate Rabinoz about the flatearth when he cherry picks ancient invalid globe models over ancient invalid models of a flatearth with no real scientific proof to back up his claims.
It's hilarious that the Greeks seem to meet Rabinoz scientific criterea for a globe earth, while in the meantime flatearthers have to come up with far more accurate and up to date proof for their flatearth model than the Greeks ever did !!
I only ask for a level playingfield, but that seems very hard for globe earth believers who rely on many, many proofs that cannot stand the scientific method !!!

CGI from outerspace can be dismissed as proof for a globe earth, because no one realy knows what data and techniques were used.

All we know is some cripted NASA data and a CGI end result about how the globe was ''photographed''. Not nearly enough to convince even the most enthusiastic space fan about authenticphotographic material of the globe from outerspace.

Precise repeatable atmospheric math and testing instead of unguided jargon like, looming, lensing, superior mirage that is inserted in a very unscientific way when observation does not fit the prefered globe model.

Quote

If you're going to cherrypick hyperbole from an astronaut, let's look at what he said. Regardless of the completely untrue argument that all the data have been destroyed and no blueprints exist thanks to those evil bad guys at NASA here's what he said:

"We don't have the technology any more".

Any more.

Forgetting the best part.... it's a painfull process to built it back again

What could be so painfull ?
What could be so difficult ?
What could be so technically advanced ?
What could be so time consuming ?

You are cherry picking, because you have to deal with a NASA ''spokesman'' that destroys most of NASA's claims that ''finances'' are the only real problem to go back to the moon.
It is presented here, as on youtube comments, in the Clavius forums........money is the most important reason we can't rebuilt a moon rocket/mission.
I have heard it so many times that i almost believed it....

Luckily Don Petitt says it's a painfull process to built it back again...painfull , because you don't know how to reanimate a second Apollo program due to destroyed technology.
Yep...that is exactly what Don Petitt says !

Quote

So they had it when they went to the moon. You're effectively arguing that they didn't go to the moon because they went to the moon.

Why not see if you can find a statement anywhere from Pettit that says "We didn't go to the moon at all". In the interview you cherrypick he actually says "we should go back to the moon."

Back.

If you think he's speaking the truth, then you have to accept that we went.

What logic is that sir ?

I don't believe anything that Disney space institute claims, you fanboys however have claimed there are no cover-ups, no secret agenda's to fool the masses, no deliberate use of the shredder to remove Apollo data, no inconsistancies between astronauts testimonies, everything else apart from some Apollo 11 data was captured, archived and scientifically known in every possible detail.

Don Petitt's claims are 100% proof that there should be an investigation asap to make an inventory what exactly was destroyed and what we still have/know today., because NASA wants our money for a trip to mars. But if it destroyed technology that would defenitly decrease the costs NOW, then we should have the right to know what is going on and who is responsible for such neglect and destruction of valuable sources.

Probably Don will make a public statement that he was taken out of context,

just as when the Orion spokesman claimed that NASA did not know how to safely guide humans through the VAB yet, and Armstrong's early seventies interview where he claimed it was deep black in cislunar space to the contrary of Ed Mitchell's ''bright stars'' claims etc....

You make it yourselves damn easy this way...ignore facts, ignore facts, ignore facts, ignore facts and repeat the propaganda, repeat the propaganda, repeat the propaganda.
I have to spend way to much time to point out the implications of what Don Petitt claimed, but it is like hitting a brick wall time and time and time again.

Quote

Try coming up with some actual evidence that the blueprints to build the Apollo hardware have been destroyed, or that wasn't capable of doing the job for which it was designed, or that the calculations of the ancient Greeks are incorrect.

Maybe give this a read:

https://www.amazon.com/Moon-Lander-Developed-Smithsonian-Spaceflight/dp/1588342735

you could learn something.

Again i am only pointing out enormous inconsistancies among the NASA camp and their own take on the  archived and known Apollo leftovers
I cannot explain anything when i do not to know wich explainations is more true, because.....
I have never ever heard such alarming and conflicting invented aftermath when i simply matched together Explaination A and B explaining things about the same timeframe and event.
It's insane to think how much credit NASA has....i can't believe it....i really can't.

It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.

It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

Delta IV heavy launch.

The US Air Force’s X37-B space plane is back home after its fourth mission
The robotic vehicle spent 719 days in space[/size]

The US Air Force’s secret robotic space plane is back on Earth after its longest mission yet. The X37-B embarked on its fourth trip to space in 2015 and landed earlier this morning at Orlando’s Kennedy Space Center.

The landing marks the completion of the spacecraft’s fourth mission, OTV-4. This was the first time the spacecraft landed in Florida — it touched down at Vandenberg Air Force Base after each of its previous three missions — and woke up residents with a sonic boom this morning, according to the Orlando Sentinel. The US Air Force confirmed that the spacecraft touched down with a tweet.

From The US Air Force’s X37-B space plane is back home after its fourth mission

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.

Maybe you should get a job advising NASA on how to proceed? 

Quote from: markjo on May 07, 2017, 04:54:38 PM

Quote from: dutchy on May 07, 2017, 10:24:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 04:23:38 AM

It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.

Spot on !!!

Why do people keep thinking that NASA is in the space rocket business?  They aren't.  They're in the space exploration business.  There's a difference.

There's no difference. It's all bullshit.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 13, 2017, 10:44:27 PM

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on January 13, 2017, 07:19:36 PM

All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

[Non sequitur meme]

Indeed, the idea that staging moon landings is insanely impossible but making moon landings is perfectly possible is a non sequitur.

Quote

1969 - computer - size of a house

Also rare, expensive, difficult to use, and, compared to what many people routinely carry in their pocket today, not powerful at all.

This is strong evidence against the "CGI" some claim was used to fake the moon landings, but was still more than adequate to do the calculations necessary for a moon landing.

Who cares if an IBM System/360 was the size of a house if you had a large building to keep it in?

Quote

1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available

No. They were rare, expensive, and limited in capabilities compared to modern CGI, which wasn't available at the time.

Quote

1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home

1968 - Apollo 8. 381,681 km from home on the evening of 24 Dec. Distance to moon (from central North America), 379,800 km + 1781 km radius of moon + 100 km orbital height.

Quote

1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

2001: A Space Odyssey was a fun science-fiction film for the time. No one would confuse it for a documentary, however. The moon scenes made good visuals for a popular film, but had too many technical details wrong to pass muster as remotely close to realistic due to the limitations of special effects in films and simulation of conditions on the moon in a film studio on earth.

Quote

The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

The "moon-landing hoax" arguments seem to have stalled a couple of decades ago after being thoroughly debunked. Ignorance is apparently endless, however, since some still claim to believe them.

Quote

Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore

Sadly, this may come to pass. There seems to be no compelling short-term economic or political reason to put in the money and effort,

or take the risk - and it is expensive, difficult, and risky. All of that is needed to make a manned moon landing possible.

The best chance of it happening again? China may press to attempt manned moon landing(s) for prestige and to hone technical capabilities. If they do so, the US may decide that it's worth it again, too, because there is still a lot to learn, but mostly we won't want to be upstaged by China. We can hope!

• http://yournewswire.com/stanley-kubrick-confesses-to-faking-the-moon-landings/

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on January 14, 2017, 06:33:06 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 13, 2017, 10:44:27 PM

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on January 13, 2017, 07:19:36 PM

All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

[Non sequitur meme]

Indeed, the idea that staging moon landings is insanely impossible but making moon landings is perfectly possible is a non sequitur.

Quote

1969 - computer - size of a house

Also rare, expensive, difficult to use, and, compared to what many people routinely carry in their pocket today, not powerful at all.

Indeed. So the idea that a small flimsy LM could house that is ridiculous.

Quote

This is strong evidence against the "CGI" some claim was used to fake the moon landings, but was still more than adequate to do the calculations necessary for a moon landing.

CGI didn't exist in 1969-1972. Front screen projection did. And that's what they used obviously. Your non sequitur is getting boring.

Quote

Who cares if an IBM System/360 was the size of a house if you had a large building to keep it in?

People who think some steps further than just accepting a lie.

Quote

Quote

1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available

No. They were rare, expensive, and limited in capabilities compared to modern CGI, which wasn't available at the time.

Film studios were rare, expensive and limited in capabilities.
Going on a journey into the craziness of space was not rare, not expensive and not limited.

You see, your non sequitur is dooming your position, not mine.

Quote

Quote

1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home

1968 - Apollo 8. 381,681 km from home on the evening of 24 Dec. Distance to moon (from central North America), 379,800 km + 1781 km radius of moon + 100 km orbital height.

Apollo 8 did not leave System Earth, just as Apollo 11-17 didn't.

And even taking that as true; 1 journey to the Moon (without landing) was enough to perform 7 successful (6 with landing) journeys afterwards. Sure, then it wasn't difficult. Controlling the LEM in the well-known desert of the US was too hard for Clumsy Neil, but two weeks later a perfect landing on a celestial body, never done before was no problem. Your non sequiturs are dropping like micrometeorites.

Quote

Quote

1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

2001: A Space Odyssey was a fun science-fiction film for the time. No one would confuse it for a documentary, however. The moon scenes made good visuals for a popular film, but had too many technical details wrong to pass muster as remotely close to realistic due to the limitations of special effects in films and simulation of conditions on the moon in a film studio on earth.

Of course, the deal was to make 2001 not too perfect, so the film stage hoax wouldn't be too obvious. The technical details of the "Moon landings" were even greater, pointed out by many reviewers, from Kaysing to McGowan, Sibrel and White (2 of them). And back.

Quote

Quote

The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

The "moon-landing hoax" arguments seem to have stalled a couple of decades ago after being thoroughly debunked. Ignorance is apparently endless, however, since some still claim to believe them.

The problem of believers is, that they think they "debunk" something just by quoting the same liars who staged the whole thang.

Ignorance indeed is apparently endless, good you acknowledge your failures. That's the first step, now you have to take the big leap.

Quote

Quote

Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore

Sadly, this may come to pass. There seems to be no compelling short-term economic or political reason to put in the money and effort,

There are more motives than just economic and political. Scientific investigation is one of them.

"There seems to be" is just regurgitating the lies of the ones who have proven to lie all the time. Doesn't impress.

Quote

or take the risk - and it is expensive, difficult, and risky. All of that is needed to make a manned moon landing possible.

Apparently it wasn't difficult and risky in 1969-1972. So today it would be even less difficult and risky.

The Wright brothers had a difficult and risky task at hand and they made it happen for a few seconds. That's why now you can fly almost anywhere on the planet. The summer holidays on the Moon will not. 44.5 years and counting.

Quote

The best chance of it happening again? China may press to attempt manned moon landing(s) for prestige and to hone technical capabilities. If they do so, the US may decide that it's worth it again, too, because there is still a lot to learn, but mostly we won't want to be upstaged by China. We can hope!

You name "prestige" and "still a lot to learn", which are good points, and then mask them again by pouring the sauce of the liars over it.

The Chinese government! Those commies can be trusted of course. Just like the Soviets could be trusted.

• http://yournewswire.com/stanley-kubrick-confesses-to-faking-the-moon-landings/

after the descent, dust was undisturbed on the surface and none was on the legs.   

Quote from: BrightNextStep on May 22, 2017, 02:47:07 AM

after the descent, dust was undisturbed on the surface and none was on the legs.   

That's correct. If you watch any video footage of a lunar landing, and that also includes the Chinese one, you see the descent engine sending lunar dust off towards the horizon. The momentum of that and the fact that there is no atmosphere means that there is no dust floating around to settle on the LM feet - any dust entrained by the engine exhaust is long gone.

It really funny what people get up to on this forum.....pretending that they are super sleuths and know stuff.....and can prove the moonlanding were all faked! Pretending they all know all the stuff to know about moon dust and how it should move and behave at 1/6 th G ....or is it 1/6th denpressure!.......hold on no air so no denpressure, in your face Sceptimatic explain that flat people.....in near vacuum conditions...total crap by the way...... people went to the moon .......I know I had a drink with one once........well a couple of drinks....

The only thing I know about the moon, other than it's not made from metal and stone as claimed by some other flat head looser,  is a long time ago on a trip to the USA, 1989/ 1990 I happened to meet a former astronaut who had been on the moon, I forget his name, I think he said Apollo15, but I'm not really sure, being on this forum has really fucked up my memory.....anyhow we were in a bar at a conference, he had done a talk on the Spaceshuttle and the future of space flight earlier that day.....and he says the moon was as boring as this bar we were in, and he started waving his hands around he was quite well on, I think his tipple was wild turkey, I was getting him to try some Bowmore the bar had!....anyhow he said boring boring boring, when I asked why? He smiled and said .....both lacked any atmosphere, he then almost pissed himself laughing, the funny thing is I didn't laugh either. He then promptly fell off his stool. I had to carry him back to his room, his wife (girlfriend?) was not happy. The other strange thing I remember thinking was odd at the time he asked me if I wanted to buy any stamps!

True story.

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 24, 2017, 03:36:52 PM

It really funny what people get up to on this forum.....pretending that they are super sleuths and know stuff.....and can prove the moonlanding were all faked! Pretending they all know all the stuff to know about moon dust and how it should move and behave at 1/6 th G ....or is it 1/6th denpressure!.......hold on no air so no denpressure, in your face Sceptimatic explain that flat people.....in near vacuum conditions...total crap by the way...... people went to the moon .......I know I had a drink with one once........well a couple of drinks....

The only thing I know about the moon, other than it's not made from metal and stone as claimed by some other flat head looser,  is a long time ago on a trip to the USA, 1989/ 1990 I happened to meet a former astronaut who had been on the moon, I forget his name, I think he said Apollo15, but I'm not really sure, being on this forum has really fucked up my memory.....anyhow we were in a bar at a conference, he had done a talk on the Spaceshuttle and the future of space flight earlier that day.....and he says the moon was as boring as this bar we were in, and he started waving his hands around he was quite well on, I think his tipple was wild turkey, I was getting him to try some Bowmore the bar had!....anyhow he said boring boring boring, when I asked why? He smiled and said .....both lacked any atmosphere, he then almost pissed himself laughing, the funny thing is I didn't laugh either. He then promptly fell off his stool. I had to carry him back to his room, his wife (girlfriend?) was not happy. The other strange thing I remember thinking was odd at the time he asked me if I wanted to buy any stamps!

True story.

True is also that you and others shovel a recent ISS live event between an ISS guitar hero and a band+choir on earth under the carpet.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Every sensible person agrees that the specific ''live'' event between the ISS and earth is fraudulent on all accounts, but no one taking part in the actuall event indicated such thing.
If NASA is willing to betray the general public this way, i wonder what their ''moral standards'' look like.
Is it allright to pretend a certain ''intergalactic'' concert to fool the masses, while insiders like me  know for a fact that it is totally impossible to have a real live concert between the ISS and planet earth ?

Who would dismiss this glaring fraudulent event as a minor footnote ??

Still wearing those NASAphobic glasses, I see!

When are all those like youself going to realise that NASA had nothing to do with "the shape of the earth".
The current, and well proven, Heliocentric Globe was firmly entrenched long before NASA turned up.

A few blowhards, like yourself, are not going to change anything.

The actual audio is for experts like me a post studio production in all aspects.

Since you nor any other glober validate my expertise in this particular aspect of sound, recording and live music, i wonder if you really care about any truth at all.

I have proposed the credibility of this event with several recording and theater engeneres and all agreed it is impossible on several levels.

The end result that was shown with accompanying video defies reality as WE the experts know as such.