Do you believe Apollo 11 was a hoax?

Quote from: dutchy on January 05, 2018, 12:46:39 PM

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 !
O
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

Wow a classis case of pot vs kettle....

If you read my replies to frenat, you'd see that my main argument is built around the phrase ""it's a pianfull process to built it back" in relation to 'destroyed technologies'.
You ignored the most important part... and accusing me of ignoring stuff that doesn't support my argument..... well well well now......

If you read what i said then it has nothing to do with quote mining ( like you just did and forgot to mention the very heart of my arguments)....
Don said 'the technologies were destroyed AND it is a painfull process to built it back !
If according to Apollo believers every detail about Apollo is well understood, archived and beat to dead .... then apart from a timeconsuming effort nothing is painfull in the process to go to the moon.....ask an engineer if they ever use the phrase 'painfull process' when they have all data and blueprints meticulously presented to them....... only for lazy people it could become painfull to get things done, for engineers it is a piece of cake with all possible technological data at hand.
But,......
if some of the technologies are destroyed and important 'know how' about manned moon missions is indeed lost/ destroyed then it is surely a painfull process to built it back.

Fanboyism is blinding......

Fanboyism is blinding......

As is totally futile NASAphobia!

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 01:32:30 AM

Fanboyism is blinding......

As is totally futile NASAphobia!

True !!
But all my arguments ( which you obviously read ) are based on precise observations.
It were those observations that helped me to discover all inconsistancies and lies.
As i have posted so many times in varying topics.
Liars are gonna lie ,....  no matter how water tight their pre fixed story lines seem.
A truthfull person does not lie and all he/ she claims is simply a manifestation of genuine experiences.

In all my attempts exposing NASA' astronauts and spokesmen,  i have showed the former ( liar is gonna lie eventually) in action many , many times.
Only to find ( your) mockery and hostile comments in return as if i am the one who takes their words out of context.

Like me, millions of others discovered the same things all over again...... NASA astronauts and spokesmen have been caught numerous times lying, deceiving, changing arguments and simply ignoring the difficult questions......while having the obligation to answer the general public who funds them in the most accurate way possible.
Instead we get a pre orchesteated 'fanboy interview' without any dept...... and even then their storylines are full of crap.

And you sir 'see no evil' and 'hear no evil'.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 06, 2018, 02:07:42 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 01:32:30 AM

Fanboyism is blinding......

As is totally futile NASAphobia!

True !!
But all my arguments ( which you obviously read ) are based on precise observations.
It were those observations that helped me to discover all inconsistancies and lies.

You mean, that helped you to discover, with your total lack of knowledge of:
     photography, physics, radiation, lighting and the reflective properties of the lunar surface etc, etc, ad nauseum
what you as a confirmed NASAphobe consider inconsistencies and lies, simply because NASA killed your pet pizza planet.

Well, dutchy, they didn't, your flat earth never was! This Globe idea predates NASA by many many centuries at least (over 2 millennia actually)!

THE SPHERE OF SACROBOSCO
An early 13th century treatise on astronomy, by Iohannes de Sacrobosco.

         THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.

          FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.

          SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.

From: THE SPHERE OF SACROBOSCO, by Iohannes de Sacrobosco

Iohannes de Sacrobosco "was a scholar, monk and astronomer who was a teacher at the University of Paris."

The language and some of the ideas are a bit dated (it was written in the 1200's) but you get the idea and he agrees quite well with the thoughts expressed by The Venerable Bede who was a very influential English monk and astronomer about 600 years earlier.

So, what the point of beating NASA over the head? The Russians did much the same thing as NASA, except for a manned landing and did it earlier and the Japan, Europe and I believe even India (and possibly China) have sent spacecraft to the moon.

Why the NASA bashing?

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 03:01:21 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 06, 2018, 02:07:42 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 01:32:30 AM

Fanboyism is blinding......

As is totally futile NASAphobia!

True !!
But all my arguments ( which you obviously read ) are based on precise observations.
It were those observations that helped me to discover all inconsistancies and lies.

You mean, that helped you to discover, with your total lack of knowledge of:
     photography, physics, radiation, lighting and the reflective properties of the lunar surface etc, etc, ad nauseum
what you as a confirmed NASAphobe consider inconsistencies and lies, simply because NASA killed your pet pizza planet.

Even if you were 100% right with the above assumptions about my lack of knowledge, it isn't about that !
I am, like many inhabitants of this world, born with the ability to discern facial expressions and all sorts of human behaviour.
I was trained from infancy...and because i never had to do a job that required me to join the ''cheat and lie'' salesmen tactics i have preserved most human abilities to discern between the extremes....an abilty we were all born with.
The main foundations of my anti NASA posts focus on lying and cheating astronauts and NASA spokesmen.
Supported by millions of people who hear the astronauts for the first time in their post Apollo press conference...it is THAT obvious for the human ability to discern strange and evasive behaviour when there is absolutely no need for it.
Go to the comment sections of the numerous video's on the internet and see for yourself that people confronted with those specific interviews are stunned in extreme fashion.

But there lies your problem......you can make valid claims about the lack of knowledge when discussing technological aspects of Apollo.......albite a dead horse....
But every single induvidual is a professional when it comes to human interaction.....because that's what we do all day.
The fanboy repair team (i count you in) claims it is absolutely normal behaviour and explainable, while humans equiped from birth with the ability to discern strange and evasive behaviour have all their alarm bells on alert !!
When that doesn't seem to work, the repair team wants to discuss technical aspects of Apollo....the more difficult the better, because the majority feels mighty impressed when such an avalange is thrown over their heads.....

Well rabinoz, i would ''up the ante'' if i were you, because you could expect a severe pay cut in the near future 

Well, dutchy, they didn't, your flat earth never was! This Globe idea predates NASA by many many centuries at least (over 2 millennia actually)!

Change the subject to your prefered subject and never discuss the lying, deceiving and evasive behaviour of NASA astronauts and spokesmen when caught in bright daylight when their pre fixed storylines fall apart !!
And i know you like the discuss all secondary stuff, but since you cannot show me any form of measurable curvature, i have no idea why i should believe the rest of your fantasies about a spinning, titlted, wobbling, accelerating ball in a vacuum of 28 billion lightyears across._

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 05, 2018, 05:13:00 PM

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.

And yet non is ever presented

Quote from: totallackey on January 05, 2018, 09:39:59 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 05, 2018, 05:13:00 PM

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.

And yet non is ever presented

Plenty of evidence is presented.

Shills simply insert the word, "questionable," prior to the word, "evidence."

That is your only purpose in life.

The main foundations of my anti NASA posts focus on lying and cheating astronauts and NASA spokesmen.

Sometime ago I asked if you'd ever spoken to an astronaut or visited any of the space centres/museums around the world. I urge you to do so if you can. Meet them face to face, ask about their missions and experiences. Speak to the ground crews and engineers that are on hand in places like KSC and JSC. Then decide if their lying to you instead of deciding by reading youtube comments.

I've been lucky enough to meet Tom Stafford, Fred Haise, Jim Lovell (all apollo), Bruce Melnick, and Tom Henricks (shuttle). Through work contacts I've been very fortunate to get "back stage" tours around JSC speaking to all sorts of people from past and current projects. Dutchy, they're not lying my friend. Can you imagine the size of the conspiracy needed? This is not difficult to do. Flights and accommodation to Houston are relatively cheap and the bus to JSC from downtown is $3 each way! Adult entry is circa $30. Or start in europe, ESA must have something similar. I think this is something you need to do.

Also it's not just about the astronauts. There are countless videos and books about the American and Russian space efforts and the teams and infrastructure needed.

This doc about Mission Control is fantastic....

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

As ever I wish you well.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 06, 2018, 06:14:23 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 05, 2018, 09:39:59 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 05, 2018, 05:13:00 PM

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.

And yet non is ever presented

Plenty of evidence is presented.

Shills simply insert the word, "questionable," prior to the word, "evidence."

That is your only purpose in life.

No, what is presented is "it doesn't look right to my completely untrained eye."
That's really all that is ever presented.

Dutchy, looking at your rant about what an expert you are as a human lie detector, I am brought back to same argument.  It doesn't look right to you.
That's not evidence.  Pulling statements out of context is not evidence.
You have yet to provide any at all.

Don said 'the technologies were destroyed AND it is a painfull process to built it back !
If according to Apollo believers every detail about Apollo is well understood, archived and beat to dead .... then apart from a timeconsuming effort nothing is painfull in the process to go to the moon.....ask an engineer if they ever use the phrase 'painfull process' when they have all data and blueprints meticulously presented to them....... only for lazy people it could become painfull to get things done, for engineers it is a piece of cake with all possible technological data at hand.
But,......
if some of the technologies are destroyed and important 'know how' about manned moon missions is indeed lost/ destroyed then it is surely a painfull process to built it back.

Just out of curiosity, are you assuming that NASA would, or eve should, have all of the blueprints and manufacturing details of the Saturn V?  You do understand that the rockets and other technologies were contracted out to a number of prime and various levels of subcontractors (some of which don't exist any more), don't you?

By the way, NASA is trying to use existing technologies in the SLS, but that's not as easy as it sounds.  You would think that just adding a segment to the existing SRBs should be a snap, but it's essentially a complete redesign.  You can't just scale up the Apollo command module from 3 astronauts to 7 without a lot of work.  Don't forget that there's a reason why the term "rocket science" is used to describe exceedingly difficult things.

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 01:32:30 AM

Don said 'the technologies were destroyed AND it is a painfull process to built it back !
If according to Apollo believers every detail about Apollo is well understood, archived and beat to dead .... then apart from a timeconsuming effort nothing is painfull in the process to go to the moon.....ask an engineer if they ever use the phrase 'painfull process' when they have all data and blueprints meticulously presented to them....... only for lazy people it could become painfull to get things done, for engineers it is a piece of cake with all possible technological data at hand.
But,......
if some of the technologies are destroyed and important 'know how' about manned moon missions is indeed lost/ destroyed then it is surely a painfull process to built it back.

Just out of curiosity, are you assuming that NASA would, or eve should, have all of the blueprints and manufacturing details of the Saturn V?  You do understand that the rockets and other technologies were contracted out to a number of prime and various levels of subcontractors (some of which don't exist any more), don't you?

By the way, NASA is trying to use existing technologies in the SLS, but that's not as easy as it sounds.  You would think that just adding a segment to the existing SRBs should be a snap, but it's essentially a complete redesign.  You can't just scale up the Apollo command module from 3 astronauts to 7 without a lot of work.  Don't forget that there's a reason why the term "rocket science" is used to describe exceedingly difficult things.

Could you give a summery of what we still understand today in such detail that we could go back to the moon without to many problems ?
And what we either destroyed, forgot or lost over the last decades ?

It is getting more absurd by each and every post....because it becomes very clear that neither NASA, subcontracters and fanboys know what they understand about manned moon missions TODAY to carry out such a mission in 2018.
Varying from ''understanding each and every aspect'' to ''destroyed, lost and and somewhere unknown'' and everything in between.

Looking forward to your summery and i really hope you don't try to re-direct the subject 

Dutchy, looking at your rant about what an expert you are as a human lie detector, I am brought back to same argument.  It doesn't look right to you.
That's not evidence.  Pulling statements out of context is not evidence.
You have yet to provide any at all.

Unplug your ears !!
But since i'm in a good mood i will start again with presenting 100% proof of lies and deceit.

Visibility of stars standing on the daylight side of the lunar surface
Neil Armstrong : Not able to see stars on the daylight side of the lunar surface
Neil deGrasse Tyson : The stars on the daylight side of the moon would reveal themselves just as they would on earth during the night, because of an absent atmosphere that isn't able to scatter the sunlight (there is no hypothetical situation in which humans can enter the moon without a spacesuit and helmet and the surface reflections are put on hold)
Forum Apollo apologists : The stars are not visible on the daylight side of the moon, because of reflecting properties of the surface and the suits prevent the astronauts from really gazing upwards.

Visibility of stars in cislunar space and and the nigthside of earth in the ISS
Edgar Mitchell : stars are ten times brighter than during the night on earth.......an enlightening experience
Neil Armstrong : The sky on the moon is pitch black...as it is in cislunar space.....no mention of stars while that was what Patrick Moore asked.....could you see stars !!
Don Pettit : There is a black void , but the stars can be seen as bright tiny dots, because no scattering of earth's atmosphere.

I have never changed a ''word''....nada...so what i am asking should be really easy for anyone supporting the moon missions.

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.
And till now i have not received any answer that remotely answered my questions, because i will show without a shadow of a doubt that someone is lying as i did before !!!

Could you give a summery of what we still understand today in such detail that we could go back to the moon without to many problems ?

In short, we understand the science of getting to the moon.  Right now, the hard part is building the equipment to get to the moon.

And what we either destroyed, forgot or lost over the last decades ?

Ponder this for a minute.  The Spruce Goose was made mostly of wood and is still one of the largest airplanes to have ever have flown.  So tell me, why aren't we still making them?  What technology was destroyed, forgotten or got lost over the decades?

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 06, 2018, 08:12:47 AM

Dutchy, looking at your rant about what an expert you are as a human lie detector, I am brought back to same argument.  It doesn't look right to you.
That's not evidence.  Pulling statements out of context is not evidence.
You have yet to provide any at all.

Unplug your ears !!
But since i'm in a good mood i will start again with presenting 100% proof of lies and deceit.

Visibility of stars standing on the daylight side of the lunar surface
Neil Armstrong : Not able to see stars on the daylight side of the lunar surface
Neil deGrasse Tyson : The stars on the daylight side of the moon would reveal themselves just as they would on earth during the night, because of an absent atmosphere that isn't able to scatter the sunlight (there is no hypothetical situation in which humans can enter the moon without a spacesuit and helmet and the surface reflections are put on hold)
Forum Apollo apologists : The stars are not visible on the daylight side of the moon, because of reflecting properties of the surface and the suits prevent the astronauts from really gazing upwards.

Visibility of stars in cislunar space and and the nigthside of earth in the ISS
Edgar Mitchell : stars are ten times brighter than during the night on earth.......an enlightening experience
Neil Armstrong : The sky on the moon is pitch black...as it is in cislunar space.....no mention of stars while that was what Patrick Moore asked.....could you see stars !!
Don Pettit : There is a black void , but the stars can be seen as bright tiny dots, because no scattering of earth's atmosphere.

I have never changed a ''word''....nada...so what i am asking should be really easy for anyone supporting the moon missions.

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.
And till now i have not received any answer that remotely answered my questions, because i will show without a shadow of a doubt that someone is lying as i did before !!!

But all of this is just you interpreting other people's statements.  It's just more, it doesn't sound right to me.  Other people interpret them differently.  It isn't proof, it isn't even evidence.
For instance you take Armstrong out of context to try and say stars cant be seen in cislunar space.  He never said that.  You then point out that he didn't mention stars in cislunar space at all.  You argue that he was avoiding the question but the question was about the moon, which he did answer.
You demand others prove to you the earth is round and NASA is telling the truth, but the fact is those are well established facts with mountains of evidence to support them.  You hold the contrary position, it is up to you to prove it.
So far you offer nothing but it doesn't look right to you.  Oh, and the idea that you are an expert, well trained human lie detector and it doesn't sound right either.  You will excuse me if I am dubious of your claimed expertise.

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 09:54:27 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 06, 2018, 08:12:47 AM

Dutchy, looking at your rant about what an expert you are as a human lie detector, I am brought back to same argument.  It doesn't look right to you.
That's not evidence.  Pulling statements out of context is not evidence.
You have yet to provide any at all.

Unplug your ears !!
But since i'm in a good mood i will start again with presenting 100% proof of lies and deceit.

Visibility of stars standing on the daylight side of the lunar surface
Neil Armstrong : Not able to see stars on the daylight side of the lunar surface
Neil deGrasse Tyson : The stars on the daylight side of the moon would reveal themselves just as they would on earth during the night, because of an absent atmosphere that isn't able to scatter the sunlight (there is no hypothetical situation in which humans can enter the moon without a spacesuit and helmet and the surface reflections are put on hold)
Forum Apollo apologists : The stars are not visible on the daylight side of the moon, because of reflecting properties of the surface and the suits prevent the astronauts from really gazing upwards.

Visibility of stars in cislunar space and and the nigthside of earth in the ISS
Edgar Mitchell : stars are ten times brighter than during the night on earth.......an enlightening experience
Neil Armstrong : The sky on the moon is pitch black...as it is in cislunar space.....no mention of stars while that was what Patrick Moore asked.....could you see stars !!
Don Pettit : There is a black void , but the stars can be seen as bright tiny dots, because no scattering of earth's atmosphere.

I have never changed a ''word''....nada...so what i am asking should be really easy for anyone supporting the moon missions.

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.
And till now i have not received any answer that remotely answered my questions, because i will show without a shadow of a doubt that someone is lying as i did before !!!

But all of this is just you interpreting other people's statements.  It's just more, it doesn't sound right to me.  Other people interpret them differently.  It isn't proof, it isn't even evidence.
For instance you take Armstrong out of context to try and say stars cant be seen in cislunar space.  He never said that.  You then point out that he didn't mention stars in cislunar space at all.  You argue that he was avoiding the question but the question was about the moon, which he did answer.
You demand others prove to you the earth is round and NASA is telling the truth, but the fact is those are well established facts with mountains of evidence to support them.  You hold the contrary position, it is up to you to prove it.
So far you offer nothing but it doesn't look right to you.  Oh, and the idea that you are an expert, well trained human lie detector and it doesn't sound right either.  You will excuse me if I am dubious of your claimed expertise.

Ahhh what a pity,...you still ignore my questions.
So you can repeat your silly mantra that ''it doesn't look right to me''....

Maybe you overlooked my questions....you can copy the answer from whatever pro NASA site you like or think has an accurate presentation about the visibilty of stars in outer space and upon the lunar surface....

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.


I know these kind of simple questions are a form of kryptonite to you and the likes of frenat/onebigmonkey, but as a father of three for 24 years i am used to any kind of evasive behaviour.

Looking forward to your answers Badxtoss .....

Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 06:52:11 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 06, 2018, 06:14:23 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 05, 2018, 09:39:59 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 05, 2018, 05:13:00 PM

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.

And yet non is ever presented

Plenty of evidence is presented.

Shills simply insert the word, "questionable," prior to the word, "evidence."

That is your only purpose in life.

No, what is presented is "it doesn't look right to my completely untrained eye."
That's really all that is ever presented.

Horseshit, as usual.

Evidence is always presented.

And one does not need a, "trained,"eye to correctly interpret the evidence.

If nothing but trained eyes would suffice, there would be no jury trials.

And the "evidence," would not require any explanation from, "trained eyes."

Sorry, the hammering sounds made by Mssr. Bean and the clanking sound made by the piece of discarded metal from Mssr. Irwin, plus the very clear statement made by Mssr. Armstrong concerning the visibility of stars...

All clear evidence of no such thing as humanity to the Moon...

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 06, 2018, 10:36:26 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 09:54:27 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 06, 2018, 08:12:47 AM

Dutchy, looking at your rant about what an expert you are as a human lie detector, I am brought back to same argument.  It doesn't look right to you.
That's not evidence.  Pulling statements out of context is not evidence.
You have yet to provide any at all.

Unplug your ears !!
But since i'm in a good mood i will start again with presenting 100% proof of lies and deceit.

Visibility of stars standing on the daylight side of the lunar surface
Neil Armstrong : Not able to see stars on the daylight side of the lunar surface
Neil deGrasse Tyson : The stars on the daylight side of the moon would reveal themselves just as they would on earth during the night, because of an absent atmosphere that isn't able to scatter the sunlight (there is no hypothetical situation in which humans can enter the moon without a spacesuit and helmet and the surface reflections are put on hold)
Forum Apollo apologists : The stars are not visible on the daylight side of the moon, because of reflecting properties of the surface and the suits prevent the astronauts from really gazing upwards.

Visibility of stars in cislunar space and and the nigthside of earth in the ISS
Edgar Mitchell : stars are ten times brighter than during the night on earth.......an enlightening experience
Neil Armstrong : The sky on the moon is pitch black...as it is in cislunar space.....no mention of stars while that was what Patrick Moore asked.....could you see stars !!
Don Pettit : There is a black void , but the stars can be seen as bright tiny dots, because no scattering of earth's atmosphere.

I have never changed a ''word''....nada...so what i am asking should be really easy for anyone supporting the moon missions.

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.
And till now i have not received any answer that remotely answered my questions, because i will show without a shadow of a doubt that someone is lying as i did before !!!

But all of this is just you interpreting other people's statements.  It's just more, it doesn't sound right to me.  Other people interpret them differently.  It isn't proof, it isn't even evidence.
For instance you take Armstrong out of context to try and say stars cant be seen in cislunar space.  He never said that.  You then point out that he didn't mention stars in cislunar space at all.  You argue that he was avoiding the question but the question was about the moon, which he did answer.
You demand others prove to you the earth is round and NASA is telling the truth, but the fact is those are well established facts with mountains of evidence to support them.  You hold the contrary position, it is up to you to prove it.
So far you offer nothing but it doesn't look right to you.  Oh, and the idea that you are an expert, well trained human lie detector and it doesn't sound right either.  You will excuse me if I am dubious of your claimed expertise.

Ahhh what a pity,...you still ignore my questions.
So you can repeat your silly mantra that ''it doesn't look right to me''....

Maybe you overlooked my questions....you can copy the answer from whatever pro NASA site you like or think has an accurate presentation about the visibilty of stars in outer space and upon the lunar surface....

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.


I know these kind of simple questions are a form of kryptonite to you and the likes of frenat/onebigmonkey, but as a father of three for 24 years i am used to any kind of evasive behaviour.

Looking forward to your answers Badxtoss .....

Still waiting for you to provide any proof about NASA or the shape of the earth.  The ball is in your court on this.  You made the claims, up to you to back them up.

But since i'm in a good mood i will start again with presenting 100% proof of lies and deceit.

Visibility of stars standing on the daylight side of the lunar surface
Neil Armstrong : Not able to see stars on the daylight side of the lunar surface
Neil deGrasse Tyson : The stars on the daylight side of the moon would reveal themselves just as they would on earth during the night, because of an absent atmosphere that isn't able to scatter the sunlight (there is no hypothetical situation in which humans can enter the moon without a spacesuit and helmet and the surface reflections are put on hold)
Forum Apollo apologists : The stars are not visible on the daylight side of the moon, because of reflecting properties of the surface and the suits prevent the astronauts from really gazing upwards.

How many stars are visible at night in a big city?  How many stars are visible at night away from a big city?  Does the term "light pollution" mean anything to you?

Horseshit, as usual.

Evidence is always presented.

And one does not need a, "trained,"eye to correctly interpret the evidence.

If nothing but trained eyes would suffice, there would be no jury trials.

And the "evidence," would not require any explanation from, "trained eyes."

Sorry, the hammering sounds made by Mssr. Bean and the clanking sound made by the piece of discarded metal from Mssr. Irwin, plus the very clear statement made by Mssr. Armstrong concerning the visibility of stars...

All clear evidence of no such thing as humanity to the Moon...

Perfect.
That means your eye doesn't have to be trained to see things.
That also means that your eye doesn't have to be trained to avoid indoctrination.
You can see thngs for yourself.

That being said, your "evidence of no such thing as humanity to the Moon..." is based on what?

Moon is too far?
How far?

Evidence is always presented.

And one does not need a, "trained,"eye to correctly interpret the evidence.

If nothing but trained eyes would suffice, there would be no jury trials.

And the "evidence," would not require any explanation from, "trained eyes."

Then why do so many jury trials involve specialists if not to use their "trained" eyes to interpret evidence?

Unplug your ears !!
But since i'm in a good mood i will start again with presenting 100% proof of lies and deceit.

You in a good mood? Never! But please remove you NASAphobic filtered glasses!

Visibility of stars standing on the daylight side of the lunar surface
Neil Armstrong : Not able to see stars on the daylight side of the lunar surface
Neil deGrasse Tyson : The stars on the daylight side of the moon would reveal themselves just as they would on earth during the night, because of an absent atmosphere that isn't able to scatter the sunlight (there is no hypothetical situation in which humans can enter the moon without a spacesuit and helmet and the surface reflections are put on hold)
Forum Apollo apologists : The stars are not visible on the daylight side of the moon, because of reflecting properties of the surface and the suits prevent the astronauts from really gazing upwards.

Neil Armstrong was there, neither you nor Neil deGrasse Tyson were there, but NdeG said "would reveal themselves" and the stars would reveal themselves if the observer were in a sheltered area and not exposed to the very bight lunar surface and the eyes given long enough to accomodate.

And you forgot:
Gene Cernan:

103:22:54 Duke: "...Gene Cernan says that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 [Lunar Module] (LM), he could see some stars while he was outside."

Forum Apollo apologists, "The stars are not visible on the daylight side of the moon" unless above precautions observed.

Visibility of stars in cislunar space and and the nigthside of earth in the ISS
Edgar Mitchell : stars are ten times brighter than during the night on earth.......an enlightening experience
Neil Armstrong : The sky on the moon is pitch black...as it is in cislunar space.....no mention of stars while that was what Patrick Moore asked.....could you see stars !!
Don Pettit : There is a black void , but the stars can be seen as bright tiny dots, because no scattering of earth's atmosphere.

Edgar Mitchell: Purely a subjective statement. On earth, even with absolutely no artificial illumination there is always some background "glow" in the night sky.
Airglow, What is sky glow?
Neil Armstrong: "no mention of stars", so? But it still depends on how bright the Command Module was lit from the sun.
Don Pettit: "There is a black void, but the stars can be seen as bright tiny dots". Just what is your problem with that?
1) There are plenty of places in the ISS shaded from sunlight.
2) In the ISS, astronauts are not wearing tinted visors etc.

So really, Mr Dutchy, I don't think you have a case on the "seeing stars" issue!

<< I'll let someone else look at the rest >>

So really, Mr Dutchy, I don't think you have a case on the "seeing stars" issue!

The bottom line is you were not there in space, on the lunar surface, in the ISS or even at the interviews.

Mr .rabinos who harassed the flatearthers on this forum for years with his graphs, pictures, math and cgi from supposed outerspace camera's is helpless when he has to answer a few simple questions that should be documented and answered in the huge NASA database he has at his exposal........
But for some unknown reason he avoids my questions......the same person who has his math, graphs and cgi ready whenever he can promote his silly ball....
Don't show your true colors once again, but display your expertise, so the co readers of this forum see your superiour take on the matter and silence a stupid flatearther....

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.

Or are you such a coward that you don't even want to acknowledge that ''you don't know'' and your database hasn't sufficiant material to give a detailed answer ?

In short, we understand the science of getting to the moon.  Right now, the hard part is building the equipment to get to the moon.

Why is that hard ?
Everything is documented, archived, understood and the layouts of equipment ready to rebuilt ''moon vehicles''
If something is missing, i'd like to know what exactly and why it is missing/lost/destroyed.

Ponder this for a minute.  The Spruce Goose was made mostly of wood and is still one of the largest airplanes to have ever have flown.  So tell me, why aren't we still making them?  What technology was destroyed, forgotten or got lost over the decades?

We have better airplanes now,....we don't have modern ''moon equipment'' that remotely achieves what was achieved during the Apollo era.

I hope you spot the difference,....i really do !

Quote from: rabinoz on January 06, 2018, 02:47:47 PM

So really, Mr Dutchy, I don't think you have a case on the "seeing stars" issue!

The bottom line is you were not there in space, on the lunar surface, in the ISS or even at the interviews.

Mr .rabinos who harassed the flatearthers on this forum for years with his graphs, pictures, math and cgi from supposed outerspace camera's is helpless when he has to answer a few simple questions that should be documented and answered in the huge NASA database he has at his exposal........
But for some unknown reason he avoids my questions......the same person who has his math, graphs and cgi ready whenever he can promote his silly ball....
Don't show your true colors once again, but display your expertise, so the co readers of this forum see your superiour take on the matter and silence a stupid flatearther....

1 Can an astronaut wearing an Apollo suit, helmet and visor see the stars on the lunar daylight surface without the use of optics and/or other external equipment ?
2 How bright are the stars in cislunar space and on the nightside of earth in the ISS when looking out of the spacecraft's window without using optics and/or other external equipment ?
3 i want a precise figure about the brightness of the stars in comparison with stars during the night on earth in the above questions and not some random generalisations. For all of you scientific
well grounded forum members a piece of cake.

Or are you such a coward that you don't even want to acknowledge that ''you don't know'' and your database hasn't sufficiant material to give a detailed answer ?

How about this.
You provide your version of the FE map of the earth.
Then we can all have a look see, and discuss it.

The spherical one we are using appears to work.
Planes, trains and ships seem to get where they meant to.
If you want it to be changed you should come up with an alternate.
So far no one has been able to, maybe you are the ONE!

Quote from: markjo on January 06, 2018, 10:34:32 AM

In short, we understand the science of getting to the moon.  Right now, the hard part is building the equipment to get to the moon.

Why is that hard ?
Everything is documented, archived, understood and the layouts of equipment ready to rebuilt ''moon vehicles''
If something is missing, i'd like to know what exactly and why it is missing/lost/destroyed.

Are you under the impression that a 21st century mission to the moon would have the same objectives as the Apollo missions?

Quote

Ponder this for a minute.  The Spruce Goose was made mostly of wood and is still one of the largest airplanes to have ever have flown.  So tell me, why aren't we still making them?  What technology was destroyed, forgotten or got lost over the decades?

We have better airplanes now,....we don't have modern ''moon equipment'' that remotely achieves what was achieved during the Apollo era.

I hope you spot the difference,....i really do !

We also have better rockets now, just not super-heavy lift vehicles that would be required for lunar missions (although SpaceX may have a contender with their Falcon Heavy).  We don't have any "modern" moon equipment" because going to the moon hasn't been a high priority for about 40 years or so.  Are you suggesting that we use Apollo era "moon equipment" for modern moon missions, especially ones that involve setting up long duration habitats?

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 03:51:19 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 06, 2018, 10:34:32 AM

In short, we understand the science of getting to the moon.  Right now, the hard part is building the equipment to get to the moon.

Why is that hard ?
Everything is documented, archived, understood and the layouts of equipment ready to rebuilt ''moon vehicles''
If something is missing, i'd like to know what exactly and why it is missing/lost/destroyed.

Are you under the impression that a 21st century mission to the moon would have the same objectives as the Apollo missions?

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 03:51:19 PM

Quote

Ponder this for a minute.  The Spruce Goose was made mostly of wood and is still one of the largest airplanes to have ever have flown.  So tell me, why aren't we still making them?  What technology was destroyed, forgotten or got lost over the decades?

We have better airplanes now,....we don't have modern ''moon equipment'' that remotely achieves what was achieved during the Apollo era.

I hope you spot the difference,....i really do !

We also have better rockets now, just not super-heavy lift vehicles that would be required for lunar missions (although SpaceX may have a contender with their Falcon Heavy).  We don't have any "modern" moon equipment" because going to the moon hasn't been a high priority for about 40 years or so.  Are you suggesting that we use Apollo era "moon equipment" for modern moon missions, especially ones that involve setting up long duration habitats?

All lame excuses..... if they could go to the moon today and spend the same amount of time as during Apollo they would go there in a nano second.
Fact of the matter is they can't replicate Apollo's achievements.
In order to hide this inconvinient truth they claim ' going to mars is what humans do'(Don Pettit) and the moon is only interresting for long duration.

You used to be more captious, i hope you raise your standards a bit.......

"As you might guess, the photo was taken when the ISS orbited over the nightside of
the planet. Astronauts get to spend about 45 minutes 16 times a day over the nightside,
just enough time for their eyes to become fully dark adapted before the sun pops up
again along the Earth’s curvature. In darkness, about as many stars are visible from
orbit as you’d see from a dark rural sky."

"From the moon, Earth appears about four times larger than a full moon and shines at
magnitude –16 or about 15.6 times brighter. The reason you never see stars in photos
taken either on the lunar surface or in the vicinity of the sunlit Earth from the ISS is
because it’s too doggone bright! To capture a sunny scene the camera’s shutter must
be set to only a fraction of a second (typically 1/500″) —  much too short to reveal dim,
stellar points."

From https://astrobob.areavoices.com/2016/05/18/can-astronauts-see-stars-from-the-space-station-the-moon/.

Imagine a small group of biologists going to the most specialised zoo in existance.
When asked about the animals they hardly seem to recall anything worth mentioning.
They have taken thousends of pictures of cages, restaurants and the parking lot, because ( so they claim) the camera's weren't designed to take pictures of animals in action.
When pressed really hard they claim to have seen some animals, but no one gets into any details and some don't really remember.

Going to outerspace is entering a black void filled with billions upon trillions of stars.
They would be extremely hard to miss.
In fact it is the most fascinating aspect of going to deep space.
But astronauts and spokesmen alike, avoid talking about the stars like the plague.
Neither does anyone wants to take a picture of the stars in outerspace especcially prior to Hubble.... which makes no sense whatsoever, because apart from blackness it is what this universe has on display.

To the brainwashed Apollo bandwagon it is completely normal and understandable, because why would you waiste your time on stars while you can play golf, plant a flag, collect some rocks that are on earth in abbundance, take photographs of your fellow astronaut that look good in a propaganda campaign, do silly experiments with a hammer and a supposed eagle feather, jump around pretending you are in 1/6 gravity, make jokes with ground control, drive around in a battery powered rover, call the president who isn't a crook, sing a jolly good song, bang something into the ground with a hammer so we witiness that no sound is heard apart from a drumming sound recorded by the microphone that a careless listener may confuse with the actual sound of a hammer hitting a pin.

And some dare to say flatearthers are crazy and deluded.
Try to ignore the animals next time you go to the zoo my dear globeheads.

Imagine a small group of biologists going to the most specialised zoo in existance.
When asked about the animals they hardly seem to recall anything worth mentioning.
They have taken thousends of pictures of cages, restaurants and the parking lot, because ( so they claim) the camera's weren't designed to take pictures of animals in action.
When pressed really hard they claim to have seen some animals, but no one gets into any details and some don't really remember.

Going to outerspace is entering a black void filled with billions upon trillions of stars.
They would be extremely hard to miss.
In fact it is the most fascinating aspect of going to deep space.
But astronauts and spokesmen alike, avoid talking about the stars like the plague.
Neither does anyone wants to take a picture of the stars in outerspace especcially prior to Hubble.... which makes no sense whatsoever, because apart from blackness it is what this universe has on display.

To the brainwashed Apollo bandwagon it is completely normal and understandable, because why would you waiste your time on stars while you can play golf, plant a flag, collect some rocks that are on earth in abbundance, take photographs of your fellow astronaut that look good in a propaganda campaign, do silly experiments with a hammer and a supposed eagle feather, jump around pretending you are in 1/6 gravity, make jokes with ground control, drive around in a battery powered rover, call the president who isn't a crook, sing a jolly good song, bang something into the ground with a hammer so we witiness that no sound is heard apart from a drumming sound recorded by the microphone that a careless listener may confuse with the actual sound of a hammer hitting a pin.

And some dare to say flatearthers are crazy and deluded.
Try to ignore the animals next time you go to the zoo my dear globeheads.

Taking pictures of stars, galaxies and nebulas can be done from Eareth's orbit.
Astronauts on Moon were taking pictures of themselves on Moon surface, landers, rovers, laser reflectors for measuring from Earth...
They were doing it at the sunny side of the Moon.
To take pictures of that, you DO need to set short exposition, otherwise you will just have white stains.
What does it have to do with price of the equipment?

For scientific purposes angles and other relations between Space objects are needed.
To take instruments to Moon for that was additional unnecessary expense.
As I said, you can do it partly from Earth, and partly from orbit, Lagrangean points, or space probes.

While spending so much to go to Moon, bring samples and do other things there, would you care if some random guy somewhere refuses to believe it?