Do you believe Apollo 11 was a hoax?

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on January 05, 2018, 10:35:08 AM

You're gonna have to wait awhile for his reply.

Into the corner i guess ? 

Yep, on the naughty chair!

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 10:36:44 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on January 05, 2018, 10:35:08 AM

You're gonna have to wait awhile for his reply.

Into the corner i guess ? 

Yep, on the naughty chair!

It’s not a matter of belief.
It’s a matter of acceptance. The truth is that Apollo 11 was a hoax— and also the five other moon landings — didn't happen. They did not happen even if you  ''knew'' or believed they did happen.

I only will start reconsidering that the moonlandings happened if.....

1 A similar constructed lunar lander was able to land safely six times in succession during a live demonstration without falling sideways, or damaging a leg or anything nor creating a hole in the ground beneath it's rocket engine with similar specs.
Even if the circomstances cannot be replicated on earth, the landing device should be demontrated on earth without any real problems.
Remember....only '69-'72 constructions, technology and specs can be used during such demonstration.
No modern equivalents with far superiour technology and computing power.

2 An astronaut wearing a '69 spacesuit was able to survive a near vacuum chamber for 20+ hours with ease.

3 A Hasselblad Apollo camera with film containers was placed inside a vacuum chamber with varying ''moon'' temperatures for 70 hours and the developed film has similar quality compared to the Apollo footage

For starters it is not to much to ask for....is it ?

Damn.  If only you had the slightest bit of proof of a hoax.  You get asked over and over and the sum of your offerings is, it doesn't look right to me!  This is often followed by, basically, I can't understand it so it must be fake!
The landers were tested, and they worked!  The suits were tested and they worked!  The cameras were tested, and they worked!
Next?

Damn.  If only you had the slightest bit of proof of a hoax.  You get asked over and over and the sum of your offerings is, it doesn't look right to me!  This is often followed by, basically, I can't understand it so it must be fake!
The landers were tested, and they worked!  The suits were tested and they worked!  The cameras were tested, and they worked!
Next?

According to the Apollo supporters every bit of the Apollo program is understood, documented and beat to death........
Like your above statements it seems there is no secret whatsoever about all aspects involved in the Apollo program....only hoaxer's have a problem with the transparency of well understood and documented details that are out there in abundance.....
The only thing that prevents us from returning to the moon is fundings and ''been there'', ''done that''.

What a pity that a real NASA spokesman and former astronaut (Don Pettit) claims something entirely different.
He claims as a spokesman ( so i guess he is aware of the company policy) that he wants to go back to the moon in a nano second if possible !!!
Does he mention a shortage of fundings ?
Or desinterest in a place they have been to before ?

No and no....Don claims that the technologies that brought them to the moon were destroyed !!!!
And it's a painfull proces to built them back.

I advise Don Pettit to visit this forum and ask frenat , Rabinoz ,onebigmonkey and badxtoss so they can enlighten him how easy it is to surf the internet and find all the info he thinks is destroyed !!!
So they can easily go back to the moon within a year or two and the whole painfull process of trying to understand the destroyed technologies is not necessary !!
 

Boy i like these forums......

do you see any Saturn V rockets lying around?  or the assembly lines to build them?  Or the facilities to launch them?  No?  That is because they don't exist anymore or were "destroyed" if you will.  It takes time and money to rebuild all of that (or the equivalent as the Saturn V likely wouldn't meet current safety standards from what I've heard) and it is a long and painful process.  Not that hard to understand.

NOBODY here has claimed we could go back in a year or two.

do you see any Saturn V rockets lying around?  or the assembly lines to build them?  Or the facilities to launch them?  No?  That is because they don't exist anymore or were "destroyed" if you will.  It takes time and money to rebuild all of that and it is a long and painful process.  Not that hard to understand.

You describe another problem that has nothing to do with destroyed technologies.

Technologies :
the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.

Don Pettit is referring to the above because that is what everyone knows ''destroyed technology'' means ''lost knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means'' ,not your lame excuses about assembly lines....the latter is the easiest to built back.
But an assembly line that builts equipment that doesn't work is useless !

The moment they know how to built the proper rocket, capsule and protection etc. to put men on the moon, the assembly line becomes a far easier part in the process.

Quote from: frenat on January 05, 2018, 12:35:22 PM

do you see any Saturn V rockets lying around?  or the assembly lines to build them?  Or the facilities to launch them?  No?  That is because they don't exist anymore or were "destroyed" if you will.  It takes time and money to rebuild all of that and it is a long and painful process.  Not that hard to understand.

You describe another problem that has nothing to do with destroyed technologies.

Technologies :
the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.

Don Pettit is referring to the above because that is what everyone knows ''lost technology'' means ''lost knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means'' ,not to your lame excuses about assembly lines....the latter is the easiest to built back.
But an assembly line that builts equipment that doesn't work is useless !

The moment they know how to built the proper rocket, capsule and protection etc. to put men on the moon, the assembly line becomes a far easier part in the process.

does it really?  Even when it uses techniques that don't exist anymore (are obsolete)?  and tooling that doesn't exist?  Still takes time and money.  and the assembly line was only part that is not around anymore.

Have you asked Pettit exactly what he is referring to?  No?  Why not?  Why do you assume you know exactly what he means? Why do you assume he is referring to the exact same dictionary reference you quote?  Seems rather arrogant of you.

"But an assembly line that builts equipment that doesn't work is useless !"
Please prove any of the equipment didn't work.

The landers were tested, and they worked! 

When?

Do you have footage of a lander that worked here on Earth?

If so, you could sell it and make a million or so, buy a boat, retire to the South Pacific and never need to post on these boards again!

Not only was Apollo 11 a hoax but Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 were also fake.

Have you asked Pettit exactly what he is referring to?  No?  Why not?  Why do you assume you know exactly what he means? Why do you assume he is referring to the exact same dictionary reference you quote?  Seems rather arrogant of you.

Arrogant ?? Why ? ''destroyed technologies'' is pretty clear and '' a painfull rebuilding process'' is too. Rebuilding an assembly line is what it says.....rebuilding an assembly line !

But your shilly tactics are well known, so no surprise here.....

Quote from: smokified on January 05, 2018, 09:19:32 AM

"Name calling" does not remove credibility. 

Of course it does.....i call it argument enhancers that insecure and emotionally unstable persons need to feel more secure about an otherwise weak position.

You may want to explain that to totallacky.

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 10:17:25 AM

Quote from: smokified on January 05, 2018, 09:19:32 AM

"Name calling" does not remove credibility. 

Of course it does.....i call it argument enhancers that insecure and emotionally unstable persons need to feel more secure about an otherwise weak position.

You may want to explain that to totallacky.

You agree with dutchy, Opus?

No and no....Don claims that the technologies that brought them to the moon were destroyed !!!!
And it's a painfull proces to built them back.

Even if the technologies weren't destroyed, as you like to point out, no one in their right mind would use them today anyway.  They would use or develop much better, safer and more efficient technologies.

Quote from: markjo on January 05, 2018, 01:15:14 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 10:17:25 AM

Quote from: smokified on January 05, 2018, 09:19:32 AM

"Name calling" does not remove credibility. 

Of course it does.....i call it argument enhancers that insecure and emotionally unstable persons need to feel more secure about an otherwise weak position.

You may want to explain that to totallacky.

You agree with dutchy, Opus?

I agree that your frequent use of insults and abuse does indeed remove your credibility.

Quote from: totallackey on January 05, 2018, 01:22:45 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 05, 2018, 01:15:14 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 10:17:25 AM

Quote from: smokified on January 05, 2018, 09:19:32 AM

"Name calling" does not remove credibility. 

Of course it does.....i call it argument enhancers that insecure and emotionally unstable persons need to feel more secure about an otherwise weak position.

You may want to explain that to totallacky.

You agree with dutchy, Opus?

I agree that your frequent use of insults and abuse does indeed remove your credibility.

That agreement and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's.

Do you need the dollar?

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 12:20:13 PM

No and no....Don claims that the technologies that brought them to the moon were destroyed !!!!
And it's a painfull proces to built them back.

Even if the technologies weren't destroyed, as you like to point out, no one in their right mind would use them today anyway.  They would use or develop much better, safer and more efficient technologies.

Six perfect landings and safe returns to earth.....one mission aborted, but safe return.
I'll say that's a pretty impressive record that doesn't has it's equall in other fields of unknown exploration. (put a real manned mission on the moon at the first attempt and safely return them to earth)
What should be much safer or more efficient ?
No astronauts experienced radiation deseases... every battery, life support, air conditioner, camera and vehicle performed near flawless.

I'd say they only could use some minor tweaks due to even better computing power, batteries , full automatic digital camera's and enhanced life support and the moon is all yours once again.

You were kidding weren't you markjo ?

Quote from: frenat on January 05, 2018, 12:50:25 PM

Have you asked Pettit exactly what he is referring to?  No?  Why not?  Why do you assume you know exactly what he means? Why do you assume he is referring to the exact same dictionary reference you quote?  Seems rather arrogant of you.

Arrogant ?? Why ? ''destroyed technologies'' is pretty clear and '' a painfull rebuilding process'' is too. Rebuilding an assembly line is what it says.....rebuilding an assembly line !

But your shilly tactics are well known, so no surprise here.....

yes, it is pretty clear he is talking about the capability of building Saturn V rockets. 

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 01:09:59 PM

Quote from: frenat on January 05, 2018, 12:50:25 PM

Have you asked Pettit exactly what he is referring to?  No?  Why not?  Why do you assume you know exactly what he means? Why do you assume he is referring to the exact same dictionary reference you quote?  Seems rather arrogant of you.

Arrogant ?? Why ? ''destroyed technologies'' is pretty clear and '' a painfull rebuilding process'' is too. Rebuilding an assembly line is what it says.....rebuilding an assembly line !

But your shilly tactics are well known, so no surprise here.....

yes, it is pretty clear he is talking about the capability of building Saturn V rockets.

So i ''assume''...and you ''know'' what Don Pettit means when claiming certain technologies were destroyed  ?
We both don't know what Don Pettit meant exactly.....
What we do know is that Don Pettit claimed it is a PAINFULL process to built back the ''destroyed technologies''.

Rebuilding an assembly line to recreate hardware derived from completely understood technologies can be expensive, time consuming, but never painfull, because you still have all the knowledge about the detailed technologies from the Apollo project......you simply have to start using the detailed info that is out there in abbundance according to Apollo believers

Rebuilding a technological program that wasn't preserved could be very painfull indeed, because basically you have to rebuilt many things from scratch and reinvent that what was lost.

Check !!!!

Quote from: frenat on January 05, 2018, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 01:09:59 PM

Quote from: frenat on January 05, 2018, 12:50:25 PM

Have you asked Pettit exactly what he is referring to?  No?  Why not?  Why do you assume you know exactly what he means? Why do you assume he is referring to the exact same dictionary reference you quote?  Seems rather arrogant of you.

Arrogant ?? Why ? ''destroyed technologies'' is pretty clear and '' a painfull rebuilding process'' is too. Rebuilding an assembly line is what it says.....rebuilding an assembly line !

But your shilly tactics are well known, so no surprise here.....

yes, it is pretty clear he is talking about the capability of building Saturn V rockets.

So i ''assume''...and you ''know'' what Don Pettit means when claiming certain technologies were destroyed  ?
We both don't know what Don Pettit meant exactly.....
What we do know is that Don Pettit claimed it is a PAINFULL process to built back the ''destroyed technologies''.

Rebuilding an assembly line to recreate hardware derived from completely understood technologies can be expensive, time consuming, but never painfull, because you still have all the knowledge about the detailed technologies from the Apollo project......you simply have to start using the detailed info that is out there in abbundance according to Apollo believers

Rebuilding a technological program that wasn't preserved could be very painfull indeed, because basically you have to rebuilt many things from scratch and reinvent that what was lost.

Check !!!!

So now you admit you don't know what he meant but then proceed to act as if you do.  Ever going to ask him?  I'll bet you won't.

And AGAIN, the assembly line is only part of it.

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 02:01:54 PM

Quote from: frenat on January 05, 2018, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 01:09:59 PM

Quote from: frenat on January 05, 2018, 12:50:25 PM

Have you asked Pettit exactly what he is referring to?  No?  Why not?  Why do you assume you know exactly what he means? Why do you assume he is referring to the exact same dictionary reference you quote?  Seems rather arrogant of you.

Arrogant ?? Why ? ''destroyed technologies'' is pretty clear and '' a painfull rebuilding process'' is too. Rebuilding an assembly line is what it says.....rebuilding an assembly line !

But your shilly tactics are well known, so no surprise here.....

yes, it is pretty clear he is talking about the capability of building Saturn V rockets.

So i ''assume''...and you ''know'' what Don Pettit means when claiming certain technologies were destroyed  ?
We both don't know what Don Pettit meant exactly.....
What we do know is that Don Pettit claimed it is a PAINFULL process to built back the ''destroyed technologies''.

Rebuilding an assembly line to recreate hardware derived from completely understood technologies can be expensive, time consuming, but never painfull, because you still have all the knowledge about the detailed technologies from the Apollo project......you simply have to start using the detailed info that is out there in abbundance according to Apollo believers

Rebuilding a technological program that wasn't preserved could be very painfull indeed, because basically you have to rebuilt many things from scratch and reinvent that what was lost.

Check !!!!

So now you admit you don't know what he meant but then proceed to act as if you do.  Ever going to ask him?  I'll bet you won't.

And AGAIN, the assembly line is only part of it.

What is painfull about rebuilding stuff with all documented data and archived blueprints at hand ?
And a ''painfull process'' indicates stuff is missing .......

Quote from: markjo on January 05, 2018, 01:28:21 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 12:20:13 PM

No and no....Don claims that the technologies that brought them to the moon were destroyed !!!!
And it's a painfull proces to built them back.

Even if the technologies weren't destroyed, as you like to point out, no one in their right mind would use them today anyway.  They would use or develop much better, safer and more efficient technologies.

Six perfect landings and safe returns to earth.....one mission aborted, but safe return.
I'll say that's a pretty impressive record that doesn't has it's equall in other fields of unknown exploration. (put a real manned mission on the moon at the first attempt and safely return them to earth)

Umm...  You do understand that Apollo 11 was the third manned trip to the moon, don't you?  Apollo 8 orbited them moon and Apollo 10 was a dress rehearsal that came within just a few miles of landing.  Of course there were also a number of unmanned lunar orbiters and landers before Apollo, but I guess they don't count either.  To flippantly say that Apollo 11 "put a real manned mission on the moon at the first attempt and safely return them to earth" is a pretty gross misrepresentation of the deliberate, step-by-step process that was the space program of the time.

What should be much safer or more efficient ?

You're right, the Wright brothers had a number of safe and efficient flights in the early 1900s.  Why bother improving the technology? 

No astronauts experienced radiation deseases... every battery, life support, air conditioner, camera and vehicle performed near flawless.

Huh?  Are you serious?  There were a number of glitches on just about every space mission ever.  The fact that only a very few of them ever led to serious problems is a testament to the robustness of the equipment (which is usually built to far higher standards than just about any industry).

I'd say they only could use some minor tweaks due to even better computing power, batteries , full automatic digital camera's and enhanced life support and the moon is all yours once again.

The Apollo missions were only ever intended to be brief visits to the moon.  If and/or when people go back to the moon, it's more likely to be with the intention to establish a semi-permanent presence there, akin to the ISS, so the technologies will need to be far more robust than Apollo.

You were kidding weren't you markjo ?

Not at all.  Were you?

Quote from: frenat on January 05, 2018, 12:35:22 PM

do you see any Saturn V rockets lying around?  or the assembly lines to build them?  Or the facilities to launch them?  No?  That is because they don't exist anymore or were "destroyed" if you will.  It takes time and money to rebuild all of that and it is a long and painful process.  Not that hard to understand.

You describe another problem that has nothing to do with destroyed technologies.

Technologies :
the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.

Don Pettit is referring to the above because that is what everyone knows ''destroyed technology'' means ''lost knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means'' ,not your lame excuses about assembly lines....the latter is the easiest to built back.
But an assembly line that builts equipment that doesn't work is useless !

The moment they know how to built the proper rocket, capsule and protection etc. to put men on the moon, the assembly line becomes a far easier part in the process.

Not sure why Petit is pertinent to your argument.
I tried to follow the logic but I got dizzy.

So I googled Petit.
He is an astronaut.
He did say tech was destroyed.
He did say he would go to the moon in a nanosecond.
He also says he was on the ISS for extended periods, twice.

What you have done again is quote mining.
You listen to an interview and anything that helps your argument
You repeat and beat that horse hard.
Stuff that doesn't support your argument is ignored.

Don't know the FE dude's name that put the video together,
But after Petit he used Captain freaking Kirk as his next expert.

OMG, William Shatner as an expert cause he said science fiction and science are the same thing!
I'm calling TIME cause I got Tears In My Eyes.

You're gonna have to wait awhile for his reply.

That is what you think

Quote from: Sm0k1f13d on January 05, 2018, 04:06:19 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on January 05, 2018, 10:35:08 AM

You're gonna have to wait awhile for his reply.

That is what you think

Creating alts to get around a ban is a no-no.

Clearly I don't care about that.  Not really sure what power you think these idiots have.

It's kinda sad when they get this butthurt.

Not only was Apollo 11 a hoax but Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 were also fake.

If only you had some evidence of that.

No astronauts experienced radiation deseases...

Why should the astronauts experience any radiation disease? Tell me the total dose they experienced on the whole mission.
There was more concern in the lunar surface than though the Van Allen belts. The had the command module for protection in the belts, but not on the surface.

You might read, CLAVIUS  ENVIRONMENT,  radiation and the http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
which has this quote from someone who knows infinitely more about the Van Allen belts than YOU!

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

and then read RADIATION PLAN FOR THE APOLLO LUNAR MISSION

By the way, the answer to my question is in CLAVIUS  ENVIRONMENT, here comes the sun.

Don't worry, I realise that it is impossible to disprove a conspiracy, especially to a conspiritard - but their reactions are sometimes etertaining.

Deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole

Quote from: frenat on January 05, 2018, 02:05:15 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 02:01:54 PM

Quote from: frenat on January 05, 2018, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 01:09:59 PM

Quote from: frenat on January 05, 2018, 12:50:25 PM

Have you asked Pettit exactly what he is referring to?  No?  Why not?  Why do you assume you know exactly what he means? Why do you assume he is referring to the exact same dictionary reference you quote?  Seems rather arrogant of you.

Arrogant ?? Why ? ''destroyed technologies'' is pretty clear and '' a painfull rebuilding process'' is too. Rebuilding an assembly line is what it says.....rebuilding an assembly line !

But your shilly tactics are well known, so no surprise here.....

yes, it is pretty clear he is talking about the capability of building Saturn V rockets.

So i ''assume''...and you ''know'' what Don Pettit means when claiming certain technologies were destroyed  ?
We both don't know what Don Pettit meant exactly.....
What we do know is that Don Pettit claimed it is a PAINFULL process to built back the ''destroyed technologies''.

Rebuilding an assembly line to recreate hardware derived from completely understood technologies can be expensive, time consuming, but never painfull, because you still have all the knowledge about the detailed technologies from the Apollo project......you simply have to start using the detailed info that is out there in abbundance according to Apollo believers

Rebuilding a technological program that wasn't preserved could be very painfull indeed, because basically you have to rebuilt many things from scratch and reinvent that what was lost.

Check !!!!

So now you admit you don't know what he meant but then proceed to act as if you do.  Ever going to ask him?  I'll bet you won't.

And AGAIN, the assembly line is only part of it.

What is painfull about rebuilding stuff with all documented data and archived blueprints at hand ?
And a ''painfull process'' indicates stuff is missing .......

Why would they build exactly the same when the techniques used have become obsolete and better materials are available?  They wouldn't.  They would have to redesign.  Especially as they wouldn't want to do it the same as Apollo.  Apollo was capable of landing two men on the surface for a few days at most.  They'd likely want more people and to stay longer.  Pettit understands that.  And he also knows that an assembly line for the largest rocket ever made is not the same as building a new model of TV.  Obviously you've never been involved in manufacturing.  Good for you. 
Some "stuff" is missing.  Specific techniques to make parts where the techniques don't exist anymore.  Tooling.  Political will.  Money.

Quote from: totallackey on January 05, 2018, 01:08:34 PM

Not only was Apollo 11 a hoax but Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 were also fake.

If only you had some evidence of that.

Plenty of evidence that shit was fake.

That is why they still need you shills to provide counter arguments.

Plenty of evidence that shit was fake.

That is why they still need you shills to provide counter arguments.

But as usual totallackey doesn't provide any evidence.

Who cares? Even without NASA the earth is still a Globe!

Not only was the earth known to be a rotating Globe centuries before NASA turned up, you will find that:
NASA was not the first to orbit a satellite - the Russians were with Sputnik I.
NASA was not the first to put a man into space -  the Russians were.
NASA was not the first to (crash) land a spacecraft on the moon -  the Russians were in 1959 with Luna 2.
NASA was not the first to make soft landings on the moon -  the Russians were in 1966 with Luna 9 and 13.
etc, etc!
And these are not NASA!Then there are around 70 other countries owning satellites in orbit and maybe a dozen other groups launching satellites.

Yes, I know they're all in on the conspiracy that so many FEers, including John Davis try to deny!