“Try spending less time watching stupid videos, that are linked at the beginning of the thread.”
I never posted those videos, and I didn’t bother watching them. I saw the title of the thread and decided to jump in.
“If your premise is that all world space agencies are lying, then isn't their evidence already inadmissible? Now by cutting out "third party evidence," you have removed any ability to rationally approach the problem. How do you intend to debate it from here? Based on dreams? On who can sing louder about it?”
Yep, that’s the long and short of it sadly.
“So what was untested?”
Everything from earth orbit to the moon and back.
“Why spend ~400 million when 6 crews had landed on the moon previously”
“Why test after the missions are completed”
You both misread my statement, or maybe I worded it wrong. My point was, with all the rockets at their disposal, it would have made sense to send the monkey first, and if successful, put men on the next one.
“Here is a video that tells the story that it could not be accomplished in the 60's”
This video was debunked a while back by Jarrah White, who is a lot better looking than that fat sod in your video, so I’ll go with Jarrah on this one.
“You seem to be hung up on this procedure much like Ralph Rene. That is one way of doing it, but there are other methods”
And what methods are these? Murdering astronauts for the sake of science?
“There are plans by several countries to land humans back on the Moon, all in the next decade. Sadly I may not be around to observe it again”
No one will be around to see it in my opinion.
“Why is saying that the plans are stored on micro film? Why is this insane? For a scientist/engineer to go look them up would require a REASON TO DO SO”
Reason already stated, please try and keep up.
“We have shown you proof. How about 800 pounds of Lunar rock/regolith, that cannot be manufactured on Earth contrary to what you "learn" on YT”
Where did you get that crap from? Gather up some meteorites, take away the fusion layer and apply some Helium 3, chop them up into slices and submit them for analysis, job done. There is no sample rock that everyone knows is from the moon, so we only have NASA’s word.
“You say you will admit if the evidence is convincing to you, I suggest this is a lie, you may never accept any evidence, as few individuals who believe that a hoax was perpetrated, will ever admit that they are wrong”
Now be honest, would you ever admit you were wrong? I honestly believe that if Trump announced tomorrow that it was all a big hoax to make you all think America kicks ass, you’d call him a liar. Unlike you, it would be a great weight off my mind if I was proved wrong, no don’t laugh, I’m serious. The only evidence is the photos and video footage, and the rest is just talk.
I see the Lunar module coming into land and I notice the calm way in which the astronauts talk, not realising they could die at any second (the thing was untested after all) I hear them speak, but there is nothing to be heard from that powerful thruster, which would surely be resonating through that flimsy looking craft. There are instances where we hear sounds on the moon, which the NASA faithful will tell us it’s because the sound travels through their suits, so why would that law not apply in this case. You on the other hand would see nothing wrong with it.
“You're claiming it's a hoax, we're pointing out why your arguments for that position are less than convincing”
That’s because you will never be convinced of anything negative put to you regarding Apollo.
“miles of data and telemetry”
What telemetry? Show me.
“That's more than enough evidence to convince most reasonable people”
Evidence isn’t proof unless the evidence is irrefutable, and none of you have produced that evidence so far.
“You want to support your claim that it's a hoax, find evidence for the hoax”
As above, I have given circumstantial evidence which I think points to a hoax, but it is by no means proof.
“If your premise is that all world space agencies are lying, then isn't their evidence already inadmissible? Now by cutting out "third party evidence," you have removed any ability to rationally approach the problem. How do you intend to debate it from here? Based on dreams? On who can sing louder about it?”
I’m honestly not trying to be a clever arse here, but sadly, that’s the way I see it. The way you people present your arguments intrigues me, I need a thesaurus to decipher some of your posts, it’s like talking to a computer sometimes. You think you are superior to the likes of me because of this knowledge you think you possess. Unfortunately in you lots case, knowledge isn’t power, it’s delusion. The reason I persist in pursuing this topic is because I believe I am the superior one here, because having a good education doesn’t necessarily make one an intellectual. You see intellect is something we are born with and it grows as we get older and wiser, more in some than others. The part of your brain that says “hang on a minute!” hasn’t been allowed to develop, for reasons I have already stated.
“Seriously, pick one and discuss it like a gentleman. These walls of text are impossible.”
You want to be in my shoes, having to get through all this shite thrown at me. If your attention span isn’t all that great, maybe you should forget about this thread an move on to something simpler like flower arranging perhaps.
“You also know shit-all about aerospace. We have people ON THIS BOARD who have as part of their jobs in that industry examined actual Apollo hardware and learned from it”
That’s not true, I do know a little bit. So did they examine it while it was on the moon?
“No, you don't. You don't know enough to able to categorize and measure our knowledge.
Sorry, but that's how things work”
There’s no need to apologise, I forgive you. .
“By the way, your description is laughably wrong, but that's okay; let's pick that one, lets actually discuss the durn thing instead of flapping off in all directions at once. Then you might be worth paying real attention to”
So you want me to get all technical? You and me both know that’s not gonna happen, what with me bin thick an all. So what was wrong with the description you mention? And what the hell is a durn? Is that a technical term or a typo?
“The burden of proof lies with you. Where's your smoking gun?”
Nope, that’s not fair, as I’ve already stated that I have no proof, only circumstantial evidence, and what makes you so high and mighty that you think you don’t have to share some of the burden?
“You're another blow hard that assumes they are able to think more critically than those that made Apollo possible”
Exactly, they never stopped to think that future generations would see through their lies.
“Why should there be stars? Why is it not possible to shield against radiation in cislunar space? Describe the detail of the radiation environment”
I never said there should be stars and nor did I say it was not possible to shield against radiation. This is typical among NASA disciples, they see what they want to see, when there is nothing there to see. As for the radiation environment, I could copy and paste from Google. Would you like me to do that, just to humour you?
“Why was it 6 years from scratch? Why dismiss the Mercury and Gemini missions as the testing grounds for Apollo, Why can't a programme the size of Apollo and with the budget and resources of Apollo deliver?”
Sorry, the post I replied to had his facts wrong, which threw me a bit, but ten years from rockets blowing up on the launch pad to flying to the moon? That would be more incredible than going from the Wright brothers first flight to Concorde within the same period. If the know how doesn’t exist, no amount of money will change that.
“How many countries could afford such a programme?”
To fly round the moon just once? I’d say any country with a space programme.
“I don't believe you.”
So you think I am a liar? Well let me show you what a real liar looks like, in fact let me show you three liars.
“Why would a company keep thousands of drawings at great expense to satisfy a future generation?”
How much does a filing cabinet cost these days?
“You can't call us knowledgeable on one hand then remove that from us with our knowledge is false. Either we are knowldgebale or not. I agree that there are knowledgeable people her. You aren't.”
I possess the knowledge that the Apollo programme was fake, due to my critical thinking abilities, common sense and the ability to read between the lines. Something which you are obviously devoid of.
“You are not willing to consider anything. You've made that clear”
When one of you says something that makes sense to a sane person, I will consider it.
“the big problem in regards to what they are designing Orion for compared to the Apollo program is the difference in mission parameters”
The original first main goal was to go round the moon, which apparently had already been done multiple times with apparent ease.
“So any arguments against your comments must be fake because they come from NASA? With that massive handwave you render any debate pointless, so why exactly are you here? It certainly is not to debate or learn.”
Already addressed.
“I do not have this thought that they wouldn't, but that they couldn't tell such a massive lie because if they did the evidence would be there for us to see clearly. And whatever you see in the evidence, it is not proof of faking it”
But it is there, you just can’t see clearly. And as already stated, it’s evidence and not proof.
“None of those things have been added to the story after the event. They're in actual documents from the time. There are no stars in any photos of brightly sunlit objects taken in space from any space program before or since Apollo, and all for the same reason that any halfway competent photographer would understand”
Some astronauts say they saw stars and some say they didn’t. Why were they employing people with dodgy eyesight? I’m not disputing the photos.
“Why should the hardware make a difference to the physics of using a rocket engine to send a spacecraft to the Moon? What made Apollo so different?”
It would be the logical thing to test before putting lives at risk.
“NASA is under no obligation to make the story what you think it should be.”
Indeed not, but they could of at least put more thought into it.
“The planned missions are months or years long. Whole different problems arise in those cases”
Already addressed.
“ANd where, given your comments at the beginning of this that dismissed anything from NASA or a third party, is this solid proof to come from, and what would you consider solid proof in the first place?”
I want to see those plans which are allegedly hidden away on microfilm and allegedly available to engineers and researchers for scrutiny. Where are the testimonies from these engineers saying “yep, that’d work”
“Irrelevant, and as expected finding ways to dismiss it. If the tracking of the landing was done, then why they didn't track it all the way is beside the point”
So the fact that an independent body were able to track the supposed craft while in the vicinity of the moon, but were incapable of tracking Apollo on its journey there and back doesn’t mean anything to you? Are you in a coma?
“And where, pray tell, has all this "extorted" tax money gone? How many NASA employees have holiday homes in the Bahamas, and drive Ferraris?”
Only the ones that were in on it.
“If you actually build the hardware, employ the people, and do this openly under intense public scrutiny, how exactly is it "extortion"?”
Yes, they did build the hardware and employ the people, and the rest was fiction. The only thing available for public scrutiny are the photos and videos. I’ll bet they wished they’d just held their hands up at the beginning and admitted it couldn’t be done and that Kennedy was a dick head.
“So how exactly do you think the computer you are using was designed and developed? Your car? Bridges? Medicines? Etc? Etc?”
You’re talking real science here, not NASA science.
“Oh, you haven't rattled any cages here Tim, but you have succeeded in doing one thing.... making yourself look like the stupid fool that you are”
This the most constructive comment to date, you really are a smart cookie LOL.
“NASA did not come up with any of that proof and you won't them using it as any kind of supporting evidence, because the investigation work was all mine.”
So show me the proof of your investigation, all you are giving me is words. You think you have found irrefutable proof, which all those scientific brains at NASA have failed to pick up on? You should be embarrassed with yourself.
Do you believe anything about space exploration is real?
That’s a good question, take a look at this short clip. I already know that you won’t see anything odd.
“So who knew it was fake? The President? The Chiefs of Staff? Senior generals? At what military rank were soldiers and sailors and airmen informed that the Cold War was just a big fake? And nobody ever leaked that to the media? So what exactly was it that Daniel Ellsberg and Christopher Boyce leaked? Or are they part of the conspiracy too? Where did all the MONEY! come from to pay these people for their silence?”
I think you are underestimating a governments ability to keep big secrets. In my view it had to be fake, because the rest of my arguments would fall apart if it wasn’t. They had to be working together, or Russia would have torn the US to shreds over Apollo, as they will have known it couldn’t be done.
“And anyway, even if we showed you the plans for the hardware, what would that prove. You pretty much admit you don't have the knowledge to interpret it, so you'd probably wave it away as a fake. Sorry, but we've walked this path many times before.”
As I’ve already stated, although I wouldn’t mind seeing them for myself, it’s genuine signed testimonies from today’s engineers in the field to say that those contraptions would do the jobs that were allegedly achieved, that would swing it.
“Give me time to pull together some stuff about Moon rocks, and let's see where that leads”
Go for it! I’m waiting.
“It requires the scam to be maintained across generations. It requires massive co-operation between superpowers to pretend to be arch-rivals while really working together somehow. It proposes a truly massive global co-operative effort ongoing for generation after generation, enduring whatever other events may occur around the world.”
The pretence didn’t go on for long, as they’ve been openly working together for decades now, in the interests of this alleged pace exploration farce.
“It's almost as if he wasn't actually alive at the time as he claimed”
Oh, I believed it at the time, but the internet wasn’t around back then, and unlike you, I now realise we’d all been taken for fools.
What exactly was the superpower co-operation that was happening here?
So you don’t think it’s possible for two countries to fight over one thing, while secretly collaborating on another? The world must be so simple through your eyes, I’ll bet you’re ace at Rubik Cubes.
Keep the comments coming guys, I’ve got nothing in my diary for the foreseeable future.
