Comments by "Trevor Crook" (@user-ft2bt9kw7x) on "neo" channel.

@rockethead7 You still can’t explain why NASA changed the flightpath that they showed in the press pac maps before the mission Your orbital mechanics explanation was absurd . Then you said the radiation from the belt was not dangerous even though NASA changed the flightpath supposedly so as to avoid that radiation. Which indicates that they thought it was dangerous Then you can’t explain why Orian won’t use the same flightpath Apollo 11 used if it reduces the risk from the radiation. Orians main problem at the moment See the inconsistencies in your position ?
2
@randyschissler5791 They won’t use that flightpath because Apollo 11 didn’t use it either . Orian reported that radiation was effecting guidance systems. So radiation is a problem Don Petitts statement has confirmed what they did . The age of the clip is irrelevant
2
Photo shopped maybe ? Too many holes in the story for it be true . Van Allen belt is all I need to say
1
Yet Orian can’t get through the van Allen belt 56 years later . Why don’t they use the flight path Apollo 11 used ? Mmmm
1
@rockethead7 two unmanned missions . Pay attention
1
@rockethead7 there were no “ manned “ missions through the belt . Unmanned missions have been going through the belt for years That is common knowledge . “ manned “ missions are a different kettle of fish
1
@rockethead7 . Buy apollo11 didn’t go through the central part of the belt apparently . Can you tell me why not if the central part was not dangerous ? See how the story falls apart ?
1
@rockethead7 yes and why not if it’s safe ? If the Apollo 11 flightpath was the safest why don’t they use it for every mission ? That is another contradiction in the official story
1
@rockethead7 There are two belts . The inner belt is the most dangerous. So if the Apollo 11 flightpath which avoided the inner belt and was successful . Why have all missions since not used it ? It makes no sense You don’t need to be an orbital mechanics expert to see blatant inconsistencies in a story line Inconsistencies that you cannot explain Why did NASA destroy the technology and much of the flight data for instance ? What is your explanation I am all ears Apollo 11 chose that path purely for safety reasons and to avoid radiation. Nothing to do with orbital mechanics .
1
@rockethead7 you don’t need orbital mechanics to see blatant inconsistencies in a narrative
1
@rockethead7 Apollo 11 chose that flightpath purely for safety reasons and to avoid radiation . Nothing to do with the position of the moon or orbital mechanics
1
@rockethead7 ? You get them to sign NDA . Most want to keep their jobs . Who would believe them anyway . The media would paint them as conspiracy theorists or flat earthers Where is the fuel data for the new flightpath . The flight paths and detailed information were given to journalists before the missions . Without exception all flight maps had the space craft flying through the centre of the belt . The map of the different flightpath was shown “ after “ the Apollo 11 mission . Why not before the mission ?
1
@rockethead7 if the van Allen belt was not dangerous why did they need another flightpath ? They had flight path maps handed to the media for every mission . It was always the same flightpath for every mission . It is still the same flightpath for Orian. Straight through the centre If the conditions were so fickle they wouldn’t have bothered handing out the flight path to the media . The map also came with technical details written down . Once the flight path was confirmed they went by that flight path , never changed it . Except for Apollo 11. You don’t know what you are talking about . They changed the flightpath after because the original plan didn’t make sense in regards to safety . They were covering their backsides . They destroyed the technology and omitted some data because they wanted nothing scrutinised . Little did they know that one day there would be something called the internet . Where every detail of the mission could be scrutinised by millions
1
@rockethead7 I understand enough to know unexplained anomalies and lies
1
@rockethead7 I know when a flight path is changed and data in relation to it eg fuel consumption , transcripts that don’t make one mention of the belt or the welfare of the astronauts during the flight . And when they destroy the technology that supposedly got them to the moon For no apparent reason . You don’t need to be an “ expert “ to notice these things All of the flight paths for the Apollo missions were the same . Just as they are the same for Orian . But for some strange reason Apollo 11 was different because of the threat of Radiation ( their reason not mine ) So many anomalies I can hardly count them . Eg the way the astronauts moved on the moon . Different speeds and unnatural moves that defy the laws of physics . I could go all night
1
@rockethead7 I couldn’t dismantle your comments without reading them
1
@rockethead7 You didn’t ask any questions you made proclamations . And I replied with logic . Eg . If the radiation from the belt wasn’t dangerous ( your claim ) why did NASA change their confirmed flightpath in order to avoid that radiation ? ( Their acknowledged reason for doing it And why if that flightpath is actually safer and a proven way to avoid radiation Orian doesn’t use it . Seeing that the reason for postponement of their mission ( trip ) was radiation Two very logical points I made . And points you could not respond to . Other than some unsubstantiated nonsense about orbital mechanics
1
@rockethead7 You are just making empty insults without answering the questions . You are attacking the man and not the ball . That is why you lost the game
1
@rockethead7 Your answer that flightpath are in constant flux because of “ orbital “ reasons was nonsense . The flightpath for every Apollo mission before Apollo 11 was the exact same every time . And still continues . The Apollo 11 flightpath was an anomaly that you cannot explain .. there was not any fuel data for it either . Another anomaly And why did they destroy the technology from the Apollo 11 mission . That is admitted by nasa. Why would they do that? Another anomaly that you fail to explain
1
@rockethead7 Just answer the questions . I asked at least three ? Why did they destroy the technology from the Apollo 11 mission ? Humour me and at least make an attempt with that one
1
@rockethead7 I forgot your answer . Humour me again . I promise to pay attention this time .1/ Why did they destroy the technology from the Apollo mission ? 😊
1
@rockethead7 . You can’t answer the questions because there are no answers . That’s how Lies work
1
@rockethead7 Yes please
1
@rockethead7 can you repeat one of the answers . I asked you what was the reason they destroyed the technology of Apollo 11. They admit doing it . I have my own answer but what is yours ?
1
@randyschissler5791 Orian won’t take the same flight path as Apollo 11 because Apollo 11 didn’t use it either . And the report from Orian clearly says that heating was a problem and that radiation from the belt was effecting guidance systems . So you are wrong . Radiation is a problem It doesn’t matter if a clip is old and worn out it is confirmed he said they had destroyed the technology they supposedly used to get to the moon . Of course that technology probably didn’t exist in the first place
1
@notnamedbrandon What was he basing his opinion on and what was the exact comment ? Exposure to high levels of radiation will give you cancer and genetic mutations . That is proven
1