I don't care how many YouTube clips you've seen, have you seen all the film and TV from all the missions?
By now, I can honestly say I’ve seen pretty much everything, and although all the moon footage is obviously faked, there are however, the odd on-board scenes from the earlier missions which look quite impressive, which shows they really did have balls back then, risking their lives, pushing that Vomit Comet to its absolute limits. Adding slow motion adds to the duration of some of the clips, so I can understand why a lot of the moon deniers still believe in manned space flight.
If I read something, I will understand it, whether it’s a lie or not
That is plainly absurd. Do you claim to be able to understand anything and everything you read?
OK I worded that wrong, what I should have said was, if I read something, I will first make sure I have at least a basic understanding of what I’m reading before discussing the subject.
Ah yes, because all of geology is just lining up to be told what rocks are. You seriously think geologists the world over can't tell the difference between a rock from Earth and one from the Moon? Explain why it is more ikely that an entire field of science is either incometent or in on a lie than that you might be wrong.
Those geologists are not incompetent, although extremely gullible, and nor are they in on the fraud. How do you think they know they are examining noon rocks? Did they go to the noon and bring them back themselves, or were they shown what to look for in order to confirm they are indeed, looking at an Apollo sample?
If a geologist receives an Apollo sample from NASA and that sample displays the odd property not found on earth, then why would he or her question its authenticity, as who is more trustworthy than NASA to assure them of its authenticity? The zap pits are a prime example as to how easy it is for people with weak minds to be influenced, as many say it is proof that the rocks are genuine. A nice little touch by NASA, making that one up, and I’m sure the bloke that thought of it got a nice bonus.
You started out as a person who didnt understand how things like lunar landings were achieved, read some stuff that said they weren't and clung to that like a blanket because it validated your insecurities as being legitimate concerns about reality rather than limitations in your own understanding that you can't be bothered to recitify.
I am well aware of the technical details involved in achieving this fantastical feat of human endeavour, as I lived through it, and since the invention of the internet, I’ve wasted countless hours reading up on the subject. It soon became apparent that the story had many instances that defied logic, mainly from the safety aspect, which enabled me to “rectify” my ill-founded beliefs that were merely based on a TV show produced by NASA many years before.
One prime example is the radiation issue, and I know I’ve covered this before, but it looks like you’ve all been watching too many action movies, so I feel it necessary to remind you that the alleged astronauts’ bravery and the ability to stay cool under pressure wouldn’t make the Apollo 8 suicide mission any less hazardous. “When” something goes wrong, it would be up to the boffins on the ground to solve the problem, so it also makes no sense, not to have at least one of those boffins as part of the crew, as those aircraft pilots didn’t even know where the radiation belts are, just ask Alan Bean.
It is obvious to anyone with the ability to read, that NASA didn’t fully understand what the effects of radiation would pose to the astronauts, but they said it wouldn’t matter too much, as they wouldn’t be spending a lot of time in the belts. The sun was at the height of its solar cycle, so it wasn’t just the belts they had to worry about, as solar flares can cause power outages here on earth, even though it apparently has protection in the form of the magnetosphere and ionosphere, so how could they be so sure that an unforeseen solar event wouldn’t have an effect on the on-board electronics?
“
It might seem foolhardy in hindsight for NASA to have accepted the risks of send astronauts through the Van Allen belts without extra protection, but it was a minor risk in the scheme of the mission” In other words, the astronauts lives were a mere triviality in the scheme of the mission. The fact that Apollo 8, which was by far, the most dangerous of all the alleged missions, happened over the Christmas period, suggests that it was merely a publicity stunt to test the gullibility of the public, and it worked brilliantly, as at the time, those poor deluded Americans desperately needed a fairy-tale with a happy ending. Those astronauts reading passages from the bible, makes my stomach churn, but I’ll bet it brought a tear to the eyes of the over patriotic US public.
“
Flying to the Moon, radiation exposure included, was still a safer day at the office than putting an experimental aircraft through its paces in the skies above Edwards Air Force Base.” Oh please!!!
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-4A while back, I watched the Moon Machines episode, concerning the Command Module, just to see what spin they would put on the radiation issue, as the CM is what allegedly kept the astronauts alive on their journey to and from the moon. Amazingly, not a word was spoken regarding the risks of radiation. They covered the fire, and the steps taken to rectify the problem, and a few words on strengthening its hull to prevent damage on splashdown. So was the threat from radiation so insignificant, that NASA told the producers, it didn’t deserve a mention? I think this was probably the case, as with radiation being such a controversial subject, the only way to dumb it down would be to distort the facts and leave themselves open to criticism.
I’ve now came across another documentary from 2005 entitled “Race to the Moon: Apollo 8” and again, no mention of radiation. How can a documentary about Apollo 8, fail to mention radiation, as surely this is the biggest talking point between the hoaxers and the NASA faithful? I had to force myself to sit through it, as it was a classic piece of American over dramatization, designed to pull at the heartstrings of the viewers, rather than giving a full and honest account of the alleged events. I find it unsettling that there are seemingly highly educated people among us, who will vigorously defend NASA with nothing but blind faith on their side.
We are told that if two objects, regardless of weight are launched upwards at the same velocity, they will reach the same height and hit the ground together
Now prove that the 'sand' you are looking at is starting off on the same trajectory and velocity as the astronaut. Or explain how this can in fact be possible given the way the 'sand' interacts with his boots
He jumps straight up and the sand clearly rises with his boots and then drops back to “earth”, while he magically continues to ascend, and the sand falls a hell of a lot faster than the bloke in the spacesuit. Explain what you mean when you say “the way the sand interacts with his boots”. It seems that the laws of physics only apply when it suites you, and your refusal to accept what is clear to most, whilst failing to present clear evidence which would prove us wrong, suggests that either you are not able to provide such evidence or due to your arrogance, you feel it unnecessary.
And you can see evidence of this, by observing someone jumping off sand on earth.
Provide such evidence.
Let me get this straight, you want me to provide proof that physics works? You actually want me to provide evidence for something which you already know, or at least, be able to find for yourself in seconds? Why am I made to jump through hoops to get a simple point across, while you provide very little to support NASA’s claims. The burden of proof doesn’t lie solely with the hoaxers, as NASA are the accused, which means they have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that they are innocent of the fraud.
Ok I’ll humour you, here’s that evidence you ask for.
You can't think why rocks from different parts of a moon with a surface area of 38 million square kilometres might be different? Hell I live in a country with an area 150th that size and yet the two ends are on different bedrocks.
First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars. Anyone saying they couldn’t or they deemed it unnecessary to take pictures of stars are talking out of their backsides. Let’s face it, China don’t like the US very much, so I suspect the vast difference in composition is just them using artistic license, and when they eventually fake bringing back their own samples, they’ll do the same again, because it’s very unlikely that anyone outside of China will have access to those fictitious samples.
How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by alleged micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.
How much of it? To what depth? What was the pressure on the surface from the descent engine?
The thrust was enough to hold an alleged 2.5 ton (moon weight) object aloft, and in the case of Apollo 11, the engine was still firing when it hit the alleged lunar surface, but not a sign of disturbance. You will say that the exhaust would have spread out, due to there being no atmosphere, but when we watch the on-board footage of Apollo 11 coming in to land, we see the alleged lunar dust starting to billowing up outside the window, while still seventy five feet above the surface, according to the overlaid commentary.
By using simple observation and a bit of common sense, it should become obvious that if the engine is capable of kicking up dust from a height of seventy five feet, and also knowing how soft the alleged lunar soil was, by noting how easily the soil was kicked up by the alleged astronauts, then it can be safely assumed that from only a few inches away, it’s going to cause a large amount of disturbance. If a thrust equation can show that there would be next no observable disturbance, then either the maths is flawed or the video is faked. Wake up!
