“The engines were the only thing worth salvaging”
“They are hardly going to tell you they’ve salvaged something which shouldn’t be there.”
“I have no idea what this sentence means.”
I would spell it out for you, but I get the feeling, you are deliberately acting dumb.
“The only training we had gotten for a water landing was reading a few paragraphs in a manual and having a brief classroom discussion,”
“I am still very glad that we were able to save every life in such a sudden and intense crisis for which we had never been specifically trained.”
First he says he had training, and then he says he didn’t. Lying seems to be a bit of a trait among aircraft pilots.
“Dig this, if you haven't already:”
http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11
“Thanks so much for posting that story, I’ve read it before, but I enjoyed reading it again, so thanks again.”
“Excellent. You're welcome. Could we please have your thoughts on it?”
He managed to pick up a transmission emanating from the direction of the moon, what more can I say?
“I have actually spent many many hours poring through to provide exactly the kind of support for my conclusions that he seems to doubt”
At the beginning, when you said it was all your own work, I was under the impression you actually came up with the evidence. It wasn’t until you eventually posted the evidence, that I realised I’d seen that evidence many years ago. Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11. With all the other evidence available from both sides of the argument, this is about as convincing as the waving flag evidence.
OK boys and girls, pay attention. Here, the camera is allegedly up against a window, zoomed in on the alleged Earth.
Now the camera is zoomed out, away from the window. The entire earth is still in view. No glare to be seen around the edge of the window.
Now we see that same window, from the same viewpoint, with the lights turned up. Now we see glare.
And finally, we see this. There was allegedly only one window with a view of the earth, at the time of the alleged broadcast.
This is the effect we should see in the second image.
Well it looks like the hand waving is now on the other foot, if that makes sense, which it probably won’t, knowing you strange lot. The way you defend the indefensible is both sickening and at the same time, hilarious, as this is proof, that this footage is fake, which proves NASA were lying, which in turn suggests, that the whole Apollo project was probably a lie, and no amount of hand waving will change that. How does reconfiguring the camera for interior lighting, get us from the second image to the third and fourth images? Yes, it is old evidence, but it is solid evidence, which can only be debunked inside those deluded minds of yours. I would ask you what it’s like to be brainwashed, but it would be like asking what it would be like being dead.
I eagerly await your scathing insults and ridicule, as it shows just how insecure you all are. I call it “Buzz Syndrome”
“So, picture a full Moon in the sky, then imagine it about 7 times bigger - that's how big the Earth would have appeared out the window of the CM midway through transit.
“That's pretty damned big, big enough to fill a window, especially as shot through a camera with its own limited field of view.”
That second image I posted doesn’t really agree with you, does it.
“More to be pitied than laughed at”
Right back at ya!
“They are hardly going to tell you they’ve salvaged something which shouldn’t be there”
“Why attempt any salvage at all? If it were all a "hoax", why carry out an extra hoax 50 years later and risk exposing the "hoax"? In any event the salvage operation was not a NASA operation at all. It was a private venture. NASA or "they" as you like to refer to them, had no control at all over it”
It’s a simple enough sentence, and it’s in English. I’m beginning to think English and American are two different languages. Everything in relation to NASA is controlled by NASA, which includes those primitive minds, you all possess.
“The engine was cut off before reaching the surface.”
The pads were allegedly on the ground when the engine was stopped, on the Apollo 11 mission. The other five missions cut their engines between three and six feet. The Apollo 11 crew reported billowing sand, I mean dust from 40ft above the surface.
“That "cardboard" you refer to is simply the outer thermal blankets. Know what was under those? This...”
Plastic?
“Are you a military test pilot? Do you even know what that entails?”
Lying?
“Science doesn't need to explain budget constraints”
“Just once, as opposed to nine?”
“Nine what?”
Really?
“Who flew the very first Boeing 747? How did they know it would work? Why didn't they do it remotely?”
It’s a plane, we know how they work in an earth environment. Boy, you lack intelligence, for want of a shorter word.
“Like the Apollo astronauts knew how their spacecraft worked and were confident of making a successful landing due to their training. Let us know when your foot recovers from the gunshot wound”
What training? That bullet ricocheted off my steel toecap and went straight up your nose, blowing your deluded brains out.
“Explain the parabolic arcs of the dust. How would that be achieved in an atmosphere?”
For the last time, it’s sand! Kick up some sand, and it comes straight back down. This is the weakest evidence you could possibly come up with. And spare me those videos, with dune buggies going really really fast, as it just shows your ignorance.
“No billowing dust, no blowing flag, parabolic trajectories, hammer and feather.”
I stand corrected, the hammer and feather trick is even weaker evidence.
“Now your problem is even bigger. All of the engineers etc. would have to knowingly build non-functional hardware. All of them. All 400,000 of them. Your hush-money fund now has to pay all of them for life”
Why would they have to know?
“Oops, now you are contradicting yourself. If it was only so few, then all the scientists and engineers built actual working hardware.”
Your logic sucks, there’s definitely a language barrier here.
“Watch the whole clip. Afterward Sibrel sued and got laughed out of court”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2272321.stmHere’s an extract from the news article.
“Beverly Hills police investigated the incident, which occurred 9 September, but said that the charges were dropped after witnesses came forward to say that Mr Sibrel had aggressively poked Mr Aldrin with the Bible before he was punched”
I suggest you watch the whole clip, as he never poked that liar with his bible. Sibrel handed the tape over to the police, but they decided to go with those lying witnesses, rather than the hard evidence. And what’s this about court? You’re just making things up as you go along, which makes you a liar.
“Well there was live TV of the rover being unpacked”
“What’s your point?”
“That you are hobbled by subject matter ignorance.”
Did it work after it was unpacked? Oh of course, we have footage of that too.
“the usually excuse is that those astronauts were a bunch of hard b#@t?rds.”
“They were. They were military test pilots.”
Test pilots, yes, kamikaze pilots, no.
“Nor would I expect to see a crater under a Lunar Lander.”
“Then you concede all of your claims in that regard. Great”
When I made that remark, I was imagining something feet deep, rather than inches. I would expect to see a few inches of lunar dust, cleared away, extending a few metres from the craft, and ending with a uniform ridge, where the dust had settled.
“I then watched the Lunar Module episode, which was a massive disappointment, lots of information, without actually explaining anything.”
“Your inability to understand is not our problem”
Here’s the episode. Point out some parts that show how they knew it would work, for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of. They say they used a simulator, and that was it. If that’s what you call informative viewing, it’s no wonder you take everything NASA tells you at face value.
“My youtube channel settings, I have the word aulis banned, I get at least two items in my spam folder every week because of that”
So you refuse to consider any arguments from the hoax point of view? How sad.
“And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.”
So here’s a question, why am I still receiving so much attention?
“and on top of that went down the 'cold war was fake' road. There's nowhere, literally, to go with that once you've highlighted how absurd that entire premise is.”
You believe what you are told to believe, as in your deluded little fantasy world, there is only one side to every story.
http://www.whale.to/b/mullins6.html“By the time Apollo was happening he was well-known enough that someone would have noticed him spending big chunks of time in the US that happened to coincide with Apollo missions, or the use of our studios to film the faked footage here, where he actually lived and worked.”
So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told.
“someone threw the CM out of a military transport plane while a carrier and its crew watched before retrieving the space craft after reentry.”
Re-entry? How high was the bloody plane? Seriously though, they’re still doing it now, courtesy of their friends over in Russia.
“There's no way Kubrick could have been the director simply because there's no way they could have forced him to travel to the US and no way the US government would have accepted filming the landings in the UK.”
Wow, most people could only assume stuff like this, but you people seem to know everything for a fact.
“When shown all the ways 2001 is clearly a film, and not a convincing fake”
We knew it was a film, because we were told so, and Apollo was only convincing to those deluded nut jobs.
“I used to learn ballroom dancing”
And where is your proof? It’s all done in a massive vacuum chamber.
“your skepticism about the ISS is just another example of your "humour"
Oh it’s fake alright. The real one is in a large pool of water, and they don’t need to be in a plane all the time, doing a series of dives to mimic zero gravity. All three of your videos involve the use of CGI.
“The whole Kubrick thing was an online joke that the conspiracy community blindly believed”
I must have missed that story. There was a gap in his film projects between Apollo 11 and a short while before Apollo 13, which could be the reason why they had to turn 13 into a failure.
“What Kubrick movies have you seen, Cambo?”
I’ve can remember seeing six of his films, why should it matter which films they are?
“The work involved in just one part of 2001”
Watch the movie and you will see how simplistic the Apollo footage is in comparison, or maybe you won’t, LOL.
I came here in the hope that I would be able to take part in some lively debates going on between NASA apologists and hoax believers, as the sites name would suggest, but this seems not to be the case. It is just a site for a very small minority of people to discuss amongst themselves, the latest fake news from NASA, and the never ending discussion regarding radiation. It seems I’m the only HB here, as the rest of them are kicking ass over on YT, which is a very scary place for you people, which is why you prefer to huddle together in the comfort of your own little communities, away from us naughty normal folk. I suppose I’ll stay until the discussion fizzles out, and you never know, we might even beat that incredibly boring radiation thread.
