Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Apollo 11 Press Conference" video.
-
28
-
22
-
@evgeniam685 - There's nothing wrong with the term conspiracy theory, except to conspiracy believers who try to turn that term into a conspiracy (typical :-D).
It's FAR more respectful (and honest) than the stupid derogatory names being thrown around by some, like "Flearthers" or "Flatties" or "Flattards" or "Hoaxers" or "Truthers/Troofers" etc.
Conspiracy - Definition: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful
Apollo hoax believers claim the NASA used billions of dollars of tax payer's money to fake the moon landings and hence it has been covered up by government(s) ever since.
How is that not a conspiracy?
Flat Earth believers claim governments and authorities have hidden the truth about the Earth being flat and hence forced the lie of a Globe Earth upon us for centuries.
How is that not a conspiracy?
Therefore anyone who comes up with theories about such a claimed conspiracy is a conspiracy theorist! Those who believe the claims made by those conspiracy theorists are conspiracy believers!
It's as simple as that, and therefore objections to the term "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracy believer" is unfounded.
Hence I don't say "Flattard", I say flat Earth believer or conspiracy believer/theorist. I don't say "Hoaxer", I say Apollo hoax believer or conspiracy believer/theorist. Likewise, rocket hoax believer, Mars rover hoax believer, ET alien/UFO believer, and so on.
It doesn't make any difference whether the conspiracy is true or not, if something is claimed to be a conspiracy then the theories are conspiracy theories and the believers are conspiracy believers :-)
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@asifhashimov3202 - You said "You want facts? OK, just explain what they used to cool their suits, and, how they did it."
The temperature range in space at our distance from the sun is the same whether you are in low Earth orbit, or half way between the Earth and the moon, or standing on the moon's surface!
That's because space is a vacuum, there's no air and hence no temperature, therefore they quote the minimum and maximum temperature that objects may reach when in space (depending on what they're made of).
Hence an object in the sun in may gradually heat up to 250 F when in the sun for long enough, and may gradually cool down to -250 F when in the shade for long enough!
So Google Search: Space Suits Temperature, and READ the links you find.
Notice that (for the reasons I provided above) those links tell you that astronauts face the SAME -250 F to 250 F when out on spacewalks in low Earth orbit as astronauts walking on the surface of the moon.
The point is, if you're going to claim that temperature range is impossible for spacesuits on the moon, then that SAME temperature range must also be impossible for spacesuits in low Earth orbit, and so you would be claiming that's a hoax too!
If you accept the fact that spacesuits work in low Earth orbit for spacewalks lasting up to 9 hours in that temperature range, then spacesuits will work on the moon too.
Any questions?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jamiek911 - Again, hearsay my friend.
The point being, anyone can claim they saw this and saw that or heard this or heard that, but that's not solid evidence, even if they were in a position to have seen/heard what they claim.
He is human after all, hence capable of lying, delusions, exaggeration, distorted memories, mistakes, false assumptions, etc :-)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ellefleming5113 - Again, that Apollo press conference took place 3 weeks after the astronauts returned from the moon (they spent those 3 weeks in quarantine), where that press conference was work for the astronauts, who provided a presentation which was then followed up by a question and answer session with experts.
Many today (like yourself) who watch that press conference assume it was a celebration of the astronauts returning from the moon, where you also assume it occurred hours or at most days after they returned, which is why you think the astronauts don't appear as happy or as relaxed as they should, and so you assume something is wrong (i.e. that they're not excited, or scared, or depressed etc).
But look at Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts just ONE WEEK EARLIER during quarantine on his birthday - how depressed do they look to you here?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6P1wBNHqnU
They couldn't look happier, especially Neil.
And look at Neil Armstrong in front of the troops in Vietnam, where again he couldn't look happier if he tried and is clearly relishing the moment;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSKCaxx58Bg&t=385s
Is that really an astronaut who is depressed to you? Be honest now :-)
3
-
@Arielelian - You said "Contrast that "normal" behavior with the press conference and it's quite a night and day difference. They're closed, nervous, fidgety, etc."
Now go ahead and present those same astronauts in previous press conferences to show that their behavior is any different when effectively in a debriefing, because to this day no-one has done that.
Also, they are astronauts, not geologists or astronomers or physicists etc, where we can see they are more comfortable and relaxed when answering questions within their fields of expertise (eg. spacecraft control), but naturally less comfortable answering questions within fields they learned through training such as astronomy and geology (hence Neil said "sonar corola" instead of "solar corona" in his reply to the astronomer Patrick Moore).
It's rather naive to expect the astronauts to be as relaxed and as confident in answering questions related to astronomy and geology etc to experts in those fields as they are when answering questions about flight and controls.
And I fail to see any loss of composure by any of the astronauts during the conference (i.e. where it matters), so that comment from you is unfounded.
Besides, this is over 50 years ago and yet I'm still waiting for just ONE established and hence credible body language expert from any nation to come to the same conclusions as certain self-confessed body language 'experts' on forums ;-)
After all, what are you seeing that the world's top body language experts are ALL somehow missing?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@AM87422S - Just making it up as you go along is not helping your case.
The problem is, because of TV and the media, people like yourself today have been conditioned to expect certain behaviours. Therefore because the astronauts didn't enter that press conference with massive grins on their faces, 'high-fiving' everyone on the front row and then took to their seats chanting "U-S-A" while whooping and wailing every 5 seconds, you think something must be wrong ;-)
The fact is, most astronauts back then were ex-test pilots, men who used to risk their lives every week testing out new experimental aircraft, in a career that saw the death of one test pilot per week (did you know that?). Hence such men preferred to just get on with their job and leave the PR to others. Therefore the vast majority of astronauts back then absolutely HATED doing press conferences! Most hated having to sit there answering question after question. Most hated the PR that went with the job (and it often showed).
Today, astronauts are expected to be as good at PR as they are for the technical aspects of their job. Without those PR skills, they wouldn't make it. Hence someone like Neil Armstrong wouldn't be chosen as an astronaut today, regardless of his skills as a pilot.
The astronauts had no choice but to do the press conferences of course because it was part of their job (we see that same dislike of press conferences today from some top sports men and women, whether they win or lose).
Therefore all I'm seeing in that Apollo 11 press conference are the astronauts behaving exactly how professions were expected to behave back then in a televised press conference, especially THREE WEEKS after returning from the moon, with Michael Collins possibly the most relaxed and comfortable out of the three.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@onepalproductions - That's a straw man argument and hence completely irrelevant.
Here's how I know men landed on the moon.
In the 50 years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as physics (and astrophysics), rocket science, geology (and astrogeology), computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified ALL Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (where their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
No scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise, and no scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or even improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise .
In other words, if the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in the relevant fields of science and engineering that they're EXPERTS in for 50 years, then it's more than good enough for me.
And since you would probably reject any evidence that comes from NASA, how about 3rd party evidence of the moon landings?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
And don't reject that because it's Wikipedia, since the original sources for all that information can be found in the Citations and References sections at the bottom of the page.
So in what way has that got anything to do with 9/11?
2
-
2
-
@onepalproductions - So, back to the moon landings, you said "I studied 3 semesters of astronomy at university in the 90s. My personal belief is it is most likely we went to the moon, but doubtful they would share the actual footage with us."
Here's the problem with your argument...
To this day, not even the highest budget sci-fi movies or sci-fi TV series have ever recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour upon hour of Apollo footage, where even the dust and objects fall down at the rate of the moon's gravity. Even CGI today doesn't look quite right (CGI often looks a bit 'off', especially when modelling people).
When the popular hoax believer's claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6BXaGEuqxo&t=247
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-)
So the problem is, until someone can demonstrate perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence prove it can be done, then any claims that the Apollo footage was faked in a studio will remain unfounded.
That proves the Apollo footage was filmed in an environment with 1/6 gravity and no air, and the only location that fits that description is the moon, hence proving the footage shows astronauts on the moon.
If someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates their own uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that person/team has PROVEN it IS possible to fake the Apollo footage.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were fake, but it would mean it is possible to fake the footage seen. But that has never happened.
And btw, I've been an amateur astronomer for over 30 years, so I'm not new to this subject either.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wildboar7473 - Please tell me that was a joke :-)
Today, we have a HUGE number of geostationary satellites broadcasting live TV channels FROM SPACE to millions upon millions of people. Those satellites are over 22,000 MILES away, broadcasting TV channels via a weak 40W radio signal, and yet all we need to pick up those channels are very SMALL satellite dishes like this;
www.protv.co.uk/uploads/Sky%20dish%20installation%20in%20Bletchley.JPG
The moon is about 11 times further away, therefore to receive the signal to the same strength would require a bigger dish, just like the massive radio dishes/telescopes used during the Apollo missions, like this;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg/800px-Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg
So it's exactly the same principle. Your satellite dish (if you have one) works because it is pointed directly at the satellite, where despite being over 22,000 miles away you can receive the TV channels perfectly if your dish is aligned correctly.
Now move that SAME satellite to the distance of the moon and the signal would be too weak for your small satellite dish, but if you have the massive Parkes Radio Telescope in the link above, then you'll receive the TV channels without any problems, and you'll also be able to receive and send radio signals significant further than the moon.
Although I'm sure you would agree that such a large radio dish is not practical to attach to your home ;-)
And because the Earth rotates, then for distant spacecraft you will need to use at least THREE massive radio dishes spread around the world to ensure that one of them is in direct line of sight of the spacecraft at any given time.
So it's not a mystery my friend, it's just science and engineering.
Why couldn't you work that out for yourself? Oh yes, I nearly forgot, you're a flat Earth believer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's a classic conspiracy theorist myth with all due respect.
Simply go to the search here in YouTube and search for: Neil Armstrong Interview, and Neil Armstrong Speech, for example and see how many interviews and speeches you can find from your claimed recluse who refused to give interviews :-)
Neil was an introvert and he NEVER saw himself as a hero, and hence he was always uncomfortable with being referred to or seen as a hero.
In contrast, Buzz Aldrin is more of an extrovert, you can't shut him up about the moon landings and hence he's practically everywhere talking about it. Same mission remember! :-)
As far as Neil was concerned, he had a job to do and he did it to the best of his ability. But he knew others could have done his job too and been the first man to walk on the moon.
In other words, Neil was a very humble man and it shows.
And my videos showed that the astronauts were NOT miserable before, during or after that press conference. They were there to answer serious questions from an informed audience of professionals, including scientists and astronomers, and therefore took their role seriously and professionally as they gave the best answers they could.
They were not there to entertain a crowd, it was work and they behaved like men at work, where you and many other conspiracy believers confuse that serious professionalism with misery or fear or shame etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just the fact you fell for the dishonest twisting of Buzz Aldrin's reply to that little girl says it all.
If like other hoax believers you feel that 'truth' is on your side, then why the need to lie and/or to spread lies? How is it justified to lie?
For example, the claim that NASA means to decieve in Hebrew is also a lie, and yet here you are spreading that lie without question.
Btw, please state which version of a flat Earth you believe in please since there are many, i.e. dome or no dome, edge or no edge, flat sun and moon or globe sun and moon, pillars or no pillars, gravity or no gravity, etc. :-)
2
-
2
-
@elisereneekouloukas301 - And just to highlight my point further;
Transcript:
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there [in such a long time] and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money
...
...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No!
Now tell me which version of a flat Earth that you believe in please :-)
2
-
@elisereneekouloukas301 - No, my friend, my bracketed insert is the CONTEXT of his reply.
The question was not "Why has nobody been to the moon?" for which you can claim Buzz was saying "cause we didn't, go there [to the moon]"
The question was "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?" for which Buzz's was saying "cause we didn't, go there [to the moon in such a long time]".
And just seconds later he said "in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past"
You can't keep doing something you've never done, you can't stop doing something unless you're already doing it.
He went on to say a few more seconds later "so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world"
In other words, having achieved the mission of landing on the moon.
So you cannot pretend the context of a question doesn't relate to the answer given, otherwise you are resorting to quote mining and cherry picking, which as I said before is a dishonest tactic of conspiracy believers.
2
-
2
-
@elisereneekouloukas301 - Again, that is not my context, it is THE context set by the question asked. Hence no reporter or journalist WORLDWIDE took that to mean Buzz was admitting we've never been to the moon, because reporters and journalists have high levels of 'linguistic intelligence', something that many conspiracy believers appear to lack :-)
And don't resort to playing the childish "victim" act please. YOU posted that comment on this PUBLIC forum claiming the Earth is flat and hence ALL space missions are a lie. No-one made you do it, no-one forced you, and therefore you MUST expect others to question and challenge your claims.
If you're not prepared to defend the beliefs you state, then don't post your beliefs online. It's as simple as that.
And it doesn't matter if millions of people claim "2+2=5", that doesn't stop the answer being "4", so don't point to what others say as if that makes you right please, especially when the majority of those same people you highlighted are NOT flat Earth believers! :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@narajuna - The LM was a two part spacecraft, with the Ascent stage stacked on top of the Descent stage, each with their own rocket engine and fuel tank(s), for a GOOD reason as follows...
If anything went wrong and it was certain the LM was going to crash, then the abort procedure could be activated immediately to turn the Ascent stage into an escape capsule, where it would detach and fire it's rocket engine to return the astronauts to the orbiting CSM spacecraft.
That was the point of Apollo 10, where the astronauts flew the LM down to around 8 miles above the lunar surface and then activated the abort procedure, returning the Ascent stage back to the CSM in orbit, leaving the Descent stage to fall until it crashed onto the moon, i.e. they tested the abort procedure before going for a landing in the next mission.
So during Apollo 11, mission control were not "about to turn blue" because they thought the astronauts were moments away from being killed due to low fuel in the Descent stage, they held their breath because they knew they were just seconds away from Neil activating the abort procedure instead of landing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stillperfectgenerations5852 - You said "Just watch this!"
Don't take the cowards way out by hiding behind a 1 hour video.
I've proven that your claims are laughable nonsense, because if you think Operation Fishbowl is an attempt to get through the mythical firmament dome as other flat Earth believers claim (using nuclear warheads), then with a rocket taking a nuclear warhead up to 250 miles altitude means;
a) The claimed firmament dome must only be about 250 miles high north of the equator and hence it is WELL BELOW the sun and the moon which are claimed to be circling the Earth 3000 miles up at that SAME location at certain times of the year.
ALL flat Earth models place the dome ABOVE the sun and the moon, none of them place the sun and moon more than 10 TIMES higher than the dome! And...
b) It must be possible to send craft up to 250 miles despite flat Earth theorists claiming it's impossible because space is a hoax.
If space is a hoax and hence nothing can go 62 miles or higher, then how was it possible for Starfish Prime to reach an altitude of 250 miles during Operation Fishbowl? And...
c) If the firmament dome is above the sun and moon as claimed, then if it's possible for a rocket to reach the dome then that means it's possible for a rocket to reach the moon and the sun.
So which ever way you look at if, Operation Fishbowl contradicts EVERY flat Earth model out there, and therefore you should be here saying Operation Fishbowl is a hoax.
Instead, by claiming Operation Fishbowl was real, then you are saying the flat Earth models are wrong (and I still don't know why you even mentioned Operation Dominic with its maximum altitude of just under 15,000 feet).
So make up you mind kid, either Operation Fishbowl is true or your flat Earth is true, it can't be both :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CarlosSanchez-uc4cd - No they didn't my friend, and you're exaggerating a hoax claim :-)
Hoax believers refers to Von Braun's 1953 book "Conquest of the moon" (which I own) where he does indeed talk about a rocket the size of the Empire State Building to get people to the moon and back.
* BUT* Von Braun was talking about single stage rockets only!
That's the popular type of rocket seen in 1950s sci-fi B movies and comic books, where that ONE rocket launches from earth, flies to the moon, lands on the moon, the astronauts have their little 'adventure', the survivors return to the rocket (after conveniently destroying the alien's world), launches from the moon, flies back to Earth, and then lands on Earth in the SAME rocket they started with, ready to be refueled for the next mission.
Von Braun was making the point that such a rocket would not be possible due to the massive size and weight needed to carry the fuel required to make it to the moon and back, therefore OTHER methods are required.
Hence Apollo used MULTI-STAGE rockets, where once a stage burns through all of its fuel, it is then discarded to save WEIGHT. As a result, there is less and less of the rocket/craft remaining throughout the mission, until the only part that is left is the Command Module that lands in the sea with the astronauts on board.
2
-
@CarlosSanchez-uc4cd - The Saturn V rocket and the Space Shuttle and Concorde will never go into service again, that technology is destroyed (i.e. the infrastructure and the services that built, maintained, launched/flew them are all gone!).
That is what was meant by destroying the technology.
Hence just like the Space Shuttle and Concorde, we can find the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Module, the Command Module, Lunar Rovers etc, in space and aeronautical museums.
The Space Shuttle will never fly again, therefore Apollo technology is as "destroyed" as the Space Shuttle and Concorde.
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence NASA's SLS rocket which is due to launch this year, where it is as large and as powerful as the Saturn V rocket it replaces, where it will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth as a test (second test in space for Orion).
In 2024, the SLS rocket will send astronauts on a mission around the moon inside Orion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ssrmy1782 - That's a rather simplistic assumption on your part.
Prior to Kennedy's announcement in 1961 for sending men to the moon (which caught the USSR by surprise), scientists in both the USA and USSR expected to be able to send people to the moon in about 20 YEARS.
In other words, on their current budgets, they expected a slow development that would result in a SUSTAINABLE manned moon program.
Instead, Kennedy's race to do it in less than 10 years (despite its success) resulted in an UNSUSTAINABLE manned moon program.
The USSR were forced to compete with the USA in a race that they didn't want, especially the military who saw it as a complete waste of time and money. They wanted rocket engines developed for use in missiles, and so their "moon rocket" was built using smaller rocket engines as a compromise to the military, resulting in the over complicated N1-L3 rocket that never worked.
So with the failure of the N1 the USSR has two choices, either start AGAIN by developing massive rocket engines like the Saturn 5 F-1 engines to build a rocket capable of taking cosmonauts to the moon, which would mean a Soviet moon landing nearer the end of the 70s, or change direction and focus on space stations for the long term and more reliable but smaller rocket engines.
The USSR sensibly choose the latter, since there was nothing to be gained by being second to land on the moon 10 years after the USA with a manned moon program that was not sustainable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thomashall9182 - As correctly stated, that rock was given to William Drees by the US ambassador to commemorate the astronaut's visit to the Netherlands;
media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg
That's a photo of the unprotected rock and the description that came with it. So where does it say that rock is from the moon?
ALL the moon rocks given out by NASA as gifts to nations were encased in resin (Lucite) to preserve them, where they were also catalogued and mounted on a plaque. NASA NEVER gave out valuable moon rocks unprotected where they would be exposed to air, water, sweat, coffee spills, micro-organisms, etc.
The museum were warned in 2006 that the rock was highly unlikely to be from the moon because it was given to William Drees just 3 months after Apollo 11 (NASA gave out moon rocks as gifts 1 YEAR after Apollo 11), but they ignored the warning and displayed it as a moon rock.
3 years later that warning was proven to be correct when a visiting geologist saw the rock and IMMEDIATELY knew it can't be from the moon and informed the museum.
The moon rocks given to the Dutch are actually in the Boerhaave museum (in storage), as reported here before the petrified rock story broke in 2009;
youtube.com/watch?v=xNMnPkQZNjk
And remember, that was 2009, 11 YEARS ago, so if NASA were giving out fake rocks then wouldn't you expect more 'fake' moon rocks to have been discovered by now? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gabrielliee07 - Simply put, you didn't understand the point I made Gabrielle.
Astronauts are experts in the FLIGHT, CONTROL and OPERATION of spacecraft, aircraft and related equipment, there's no-one better qualified at the press conference to answer such questions than the astronauts, and so for questions in those areas the astronauts are fine and comfortable and hence it's obvious in their replies.
But they are NOT experts in astronomy, chemistry, geology, photography and numerous other fields, only competent enough through training to carry out their roles as astronauts in such areas, hence they were less confident and more nervous when answering questions in those fields, resulting in the astronauts being more focused on getting the details correct.
So when, for example, the late astronomer Patrick Moore asked the astronauts a couple of questions, including if they could see stars despite the glare of the sun in their eyes, they needed to focus to answer the questions of someone who is an EXPERT in astronomy, unlike themselves. We even notice Neil Armstrong (who is not an astronomy) incorrectly say "Sonar Corola" instead of "Solar Corona", the kind of error he would never make about the Apollo spacecraft that he knows inside out.
So come on, are you really saying that you think the astronauts should be experts in every field of science and engineering related to space travel? That they shouldn't be fluttered or nervous or even make a few errors answering technical questions from experts in fields of science and engineering that they are not experts in themselves?
Think about it :-)
1
-
@gabrielliee07 - The original footage was not destroyed Gabrielle, hence you can find hour after hour of original Apollo footage here on YouTube (eg. Search for: Apollo EVA).
What was lost was NASA's backup copy of the first moonwalk for Apollo 11, which NASA only made in case the live TV broadcast to the world failed.
But because the live TV broadcast worked and hence the whole world saw the moonwalk, NASA's backup was redundant, it wasn't needed, and hence it was lost (probably the tapes reused). In other words, all that was lost was a backup of the SAME TV broadcast that we've all seen for over 50 years.
None of the other Apollo 11 footage was lost, and nothing was lost from Apollo 12, 13 (failed mission), 14, 15, 16 or 17.
Conspiracy theorists took the news of NASA losing their backup footage of the Apollo 11 moonwalk and twisted that into a claim that ALL the original footage was lost.
That's the problem with conspiracy theories, where they put sensationalism and exaggeration ahead of truth every time :-(
I hope that information helps to show that it's not what conspiracy theorists claim, but yes, lets agree to disagree.
Thanks for the discussion :-)
1
-
@Michael Jackson - I find it amusing when ignorant people like yourself refer me to a video by Eric Dubay talking about Apollo!
Eric Dubay, the flat Earth theorist who recommends Bart Sibrel's Apollo hoax documentary and calls it "excellent" and "well researched".... despite the fact that the SAME documentary that Eric applauds shows the Earth to be a GLOBE, says space is real, says satellites are real, says spacecraft are real, says rockets in space are real, says men in low Earth orbit are real, etc... ALL CONTRADICTING the flat Earth claims of Eric Dubay and his gullible followers :-)
In other words, Eric promotes and praises a so-called "excellent" and "well researched" documentary that says his OWN flat Earth theory is WRONG, a lie, nonsense!
And yet that's the same Eric Dubay that you expect me to take seriously :-)
You need to learn how to think for yourself child.
1
-
@MattGalter - In other words you have no counter arguments, only pointless one liners.
For example, you posted "Haha if u think u know truth, then you're lying to yourself"
Precisely the same pompous nonsense said to me by flat Earth believers, ISS hoax believers, concave/hollow Earth believers, hollow moon believers, chemtrail believers, alien UFO believers, paranormal believers, ghosts/spirit believers, etc.
It's the same classic egotistical attitude that I see from so many conspiracy/alternative believers who imagine themselves to be the intelligent enlightened ones while everyone else are idiots, asleep, sheep, indoctrinated, etc.
🙄
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@narajuna - And from later in the SAME book by Bill Clinton;
"Oleg wasn’t the only friendly Russian I encountered. President Nixon’s policy of detente was having noticeable results. A few months earlier, Russian television had shown the Americans walking on the moon. People were still excited about it and seemed to be fascinated by all things American. They envied our freedom and assumed we were all rich. I guess, compared with most of them, we were."
"On my last night in the now-barren Oval Office, I thought of the glass case I had kept on the coffee table between the two couches, just a few feet away. It contained a rock Neil Armstrong had taken off the moon in 1969. Whenever arguments in the Oval Office heated up beyond reason, I would interrupt and say, "You see that rock? It’s 3.6 billion years old. We're all just passing through. Let's calm down and go back to work."
That moon rock gave me a whole different perspective on history and the proverbial "long run." Our job is to live as well and as long as we can, and to help others to do the same. What happens after that and how we are viewed by others is beyond our control. The river of time carries us all away. All we have is the moment. Whether I had made the most of mine was for others to judge."
"I also flew to the Johnson Space Center in Houston to discuss our newest shuttle mission to conduct twenty-six experiments on the impact of space on the human body, including how the brain adapts and what happens to the inner ear and the human balance system. One of the crew was in the audience, seventy-seven-year-old senator John Glenn. After flying 149 combat missions in World War II and Korea, John had been one of America’s first astronauts more than thirty-five years earlier. He was retiring from the Senate and was itching to go into space once more. NASA's director, Dan Goldin, and I were strongly in favor of Glenn’s participation because our space agency wanted to study the effects of space on aging. I had always been a strong supporter of the space program, including the International Space Station and the upcoming mission to Mars; John Glenn’s last hurrah gave us a chance to show the practical benefits of space exploration."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@john wayne - You said "Ow that's so cute you believe people who even a child can tell are lying"
Says the believers of practically every conspiracy theory out there, and so by your logic every conspiracy theory must be correct despite contradicting each other :-)
You couldn't say how you know people have been into low Earth orbit, so lets take another approach, the Soviet Union, i.e. the USSR.
To believe it was fake you must also believe the USSR with their brilliant scientists and engineers who had their own advanced space program together with tracking technology (the USSR landed several unmanned craft on the moon in the 60s and they landed a spacecraft on Venus in 1970) were ALL too dumb and ALL too blind to spot a blatant fake by the USA.
More so, the USSR were too dumb to spot exactly the SAME FAKE of sending men to the moon NINE TIMES IN A ROW from 1968 to 1972, with six of those missions landing on the moon.
It's either that or the USSR were in on a conspiracy against themselves, which makes no sense :-)
To highlight my point further, the USSR landed two remotely controlled car-size rovers on the moon in 1970 and 1973 called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2.
Both rovers had TV cameras and radio antennas, and hence that allowed Lunokhod 2 to be driven 37 km across the lunar surface over a period of 4 months under remote control (thanks to the TV broadcast);
(External links are blocked, so change DOT to . and SLASH to /)
bitDOTlySLASH3tJ8Jfv
So if the USSR had even the slightest suspicion of a fake landing, no matter how small, then they could have landed a Lunokhod rover at ANY of the Apollo landing sites at ANY time and explored it themselves to be sure, broadcasting the TV images back to Earth, and there would have been nothing that anyone could have done to stop them.
But they never did that because the USSR knew 100% that the USA had successfully landed men on the moon.
So which is it John? Were the USSR collectively too dumb to spot 9 fakes in a row, or they were in on a conspiracy against themselves... or maybe, just maybe, the USSR knew the USA had won the manned space race to the moon!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You said "It was the distancing language and glib replies that struck me the most. These men come across as ashamed."
That press conference occurred 3 WEEKS after they returned to Earth, where they spent those 3 WEEKS in quarantine (just to put it in context).
It was also work for the astronauts, not play, where they gave a presentation and answered serious questions from an audience that included expert scientists and engineers, i.e. those more knowledgeable in their respective fields.
So they were not ashamed, they were being professional and hence taking that press conference seriously. They were also chosen for their skills as astronauts, not for their presentation skills.
Also, 'A picture is worth a thousand words' and therefore the astronauts often didn't describe in detail what everyone there could see for themselves in the photos and video/film shown throughout that presentation that isn't captured in the press conference footage, but someone recreated it here;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz6nzutr7RU
Anyway, here's the same three Apollo 11 astronauts in quarantine BEFORE that press conference;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6P1wBNHqnU
Neil, Buzz and Michael couldn't look happier if they tried (especially Neil as it was his birthday).
And here's Neil Armstrong in front of the troops in Vietnam, where again he couldn't look happier if he tried and is clearly relishing the moment;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSKCaxx58Bg&t=385s
In what way does Neil look ashamed of so-called crimes?
So if you want to claim the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion and your right, but the body language argument is not evidence and it doesn't hold up my friend :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You said "I based my opinion on the clear evidence of evasive and distancing language and in particular, Neil's reaction of surprise to Collins' statement about not seeing the stars".
Now watch the following video that shows you that context actually matters, contrary to what conspiracy believers seem to think;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnLHEpwQjM&t=276
So again, not evidence on your part, just unfounded opinions.
You added "As for your point about the poor quality filmed off a TV, how is a poor quality visual good evidence anyway?"
Because it's not the only evidence (there were 6 moon landings remember), and even then, the footage still demonstrates perfect 1/6 gravity which is impossible to achieve in a studio to this day!
And just to add to that, many people don't realise that the Apollo 11 moonwalk was actually filmed by TWO cameras, the TV camera footage that we're all familiar with and a 16mm COLOR film camera from inside the lander, set at a good frame rate for Neil's first steps, but then set to capture a frame approximately every second after that (making the reel last about 90 minutes).
You can watch both footage side by side in the following videos, take note of the TV camera with stand being moved into position by the astronaut in the first video at 34:00 onward;
Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL_SrBMBRCc
Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVAGjO2dtUA (The film runs out at the end of this video)
Part 3: www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0L12WjQ4co
NASA don't make a big deal out of that film footage, but the fact that it is CLEARLY taken at the same time as the poor quality TV footage (which has since been digitally remastered btw) means that any suggestion that the poor quality footage is hiding something or it's fake is effectively debunked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You said "You have skipped over the evidence of distancing language and Collins' comment..."
Because again that isn't evidence, that's just your personal opinion. Why are you still unable to understand that? I'm asking you for hard evidence, not personal opinion.
Besides, you are the person who thought Una Ronald was an honest witness despite her ridiculous story about seeing a coke bottle. A woman that no-one has heard of since, and 20+ YEARS later there's STILL no sign of ANYONE else seeing her mythical coke bottle or finding copies of the West Australian newspaper with the letters about a coke bottle she claimed she read a week to 10 days later!
Now if she'd stuck to claiming she saw a coke bottle then I would have put that down to either an active imagination or a blatant lie, but the fact that she THEN claimed to have read letters in that newspaper from others who saw her coke bottle means she is lying, because after 20+ years someone would have found those letters in archive copies of that newspaper by now. So those letters clearly don't exist!
So the fact that you took everything Una said on face value, saying "she comes across as frank and truthful" and hence you trusted her 100% without question, means your judgement based upon the body language and words of others is highly questionable (and that's being generous), and therefore any arguments you put forward about the body language and the words spoken by the astronauts is equally questionable and therefore lacks credibility, and hence they are irrelevant.
Therefore once again I ask you for solid hard evidence of a hoax, not your flawed and questionable opinions based upon body language and spoken language, both of which your judgement has been proven to be poor.
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - And in case you think I'm being hard on Una Ronald and yourself for believing her without question (and hence without spotting the fact that she is LYING), watch and listen to her again her from "What Happened On The Moon";
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvxw_OKQWDg&t=2960
So did you get that? She says she stayed up to watch the live telecast, hence clearly a reference to the Apollo 11 moon landing occurring at night.
She goes on to say (skipping over the waffle about the TV transmission);
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvxw_OKQWDg&t=3050
She says she saw a coke bottle kicked across the screen and she acclaimed aloud "It's a fake, it's a set up, they're not on the moon at all...".
Followed by "...they were going to broadcast the same film again in the morning and I phoned several of my friends... but they were going to watch in the morning...".
So it is CLEAR that in Australia, she says she stayed up late (i.e. night) to watch the live Apollo 11 broadcast, saw one of the astronauts kick a coke bottle across the screen, phoned several friends who said they'll watch the second telecast (i.e. the repeat) in the morning, and she watched the repeat in the morning but there was no coke bottle, and so she concludes that it was edited out.
Here's the problem: www.csiro.au/en/Research/Astronomy/Spacecraft-tracking/Apollo-11-Moon-landing
Apollo 11 landed on the moon at 6:17 am Australian time, i.e. in the morning! The astronauts did the checks they needed to do, ate and got some rest in the LM, and then over 6 HOURS LATER they had their 'moonwalk', where Neil stepped onto the moon at 12:56 pm.
As you can also see in the following, that moonwalk was the middle of the Australian day (hence many school kids in Australia watched it live in their classrooms);
www.smh.com.au/national/moon-landing-how-a-small-step-changed-sydney-siders-lives-forever-20190719-p528yv.html
Therefore Una Ronald, the "frank and truthful" person who you "assessed her as being honest" is a proven liar.
So what happened to your boast that the "Ability to discern who's lying and who's telling the truth is something innate, something most of us are born with; it's most powerful in childhood as children need to know who to trust in order to survive"? :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - This discussion is effectively at an end, now that you've proven just how poor your judgement is.
You claimed to have an innate ability to tell if someone is lying, and yet despite your claimed ability you COMPLETELY failed to see that Una Ronald was lying, instead you believed her without question, calling her "frank" and "truthful" and "honest".
I've shown that Una Ronald's claim is a lie because;
a) No-one could have identified a coke bottle in the Apollo 11 TV footage.
b) No-one other than Una has ever reported seeing a coke bottle in the 20+ years since her claim was first published in David Percy's book "Dark Moon", then repeated in his hoax documentary.
c) 20+ years later, no letters from readers reporting seeing a coke bottle has been found in the West Australian newspapers as she claimed.
d) The time she specifies for the moon landing is completely WRONG for Australia! But that time matches the UK (Neil stepped onto the moon at 3:56 am UK time), which is no coincidence given that the author and documentary maker David Percy is British (along with his co-writer Mary Bennett). So clearly they didn't do their research before making up that story!
So you were completely taken in by her lies, therefore your claim and I quote "Ability to discern who's lying and who's telling the truth is something innate, something most of us are born with", is clearly something you lack, and therefore your opinions here about the astronauts are null and void.
Thanks for the discussion just the same :-)
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - Your focus on the press conference is in the context of body language and your claimed innate ability to spot liars. And I know exactly what you meant because you proceeded it with "There are "established experts" in a variety of disciplines, such as medicine, who've been spouting utter rubbish for years. A bunch of "established experts" not agreeing with me about this press conference doesn't make me conclude that I'm wrong".
In other words, you're saying "I don't care if none of the experts worldwide agree with me, I don't care how good they are, I know better!".
You then completely failed to spot that Una Ronald was blatantly lying, and therefore proving that your innate ability to spot liars is itself a lie, or to be generous, a delusion. Or to be more generous still, proving that if you can't even spot an obvious lie, then you are in no position to claim you can spot a subtle lie.
You prove my point further with your comment "I had already said that I wouldn't rule out she was mistaken", where you STILL can't bring yourself to admit the obvious, i.e. that Una was not mistaken, she was deliberately lying.
As I stated before, if Una had merely said she thought she saw a coke bottle during the Apollo 11 moonwalk, then YES we can say she was mistaken (she may have been half asleep, fatigued, effected by medication, saw a TV reception glitch that led to a false interpretation, and so on).
But her story is that she stayed up LATE to watched the moonwalk LIVE at NIGHT in Australia, when in fact it was the middle of the DAY in Australia (it was night in the UK).
You cannot mistake day for night, you cannot mistake watching something in the middle of the day and thinking you saw it in the middle of the night! Hence that was a lie.
She THEN claimed to have READ letters in the West Australian newspaper (7 to 10 days later as quoted in "Dark Moon") from people who wrote in to say they also saw a coke bottle kicked across the screen.
You cannot mistake reading letters in a newspaper that were never there, so that too is a lie, as I explained before.
Therefore you can look into it as much as you like, but how much investigation do you really need to hear Una say she watched it live at night and watched the repeat in the MORNING, when the link I provided proves that it was in the middle of the day in Australia?
You said "Do you swallow everything you're told just because "the experts" have told you and therefore it must be TRUE"
No, I look into the evidence presented myself WHILE being respectful to the knowledge and the experience of the experts who presented it. You should try it. What I don't do is decide that ALL the experts are wrong simply because it makes me feel superior.
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - Sure, and if you're become extremely sick tomorrow then you will avoid medical expert advice, right?
So once again all you can present is your unfounded personal opinion about the press conference, using the same attention to detail that you applied to Una Ronald and yet completely missed the fact that she was lying, where she is the ONLY proven liar here (yes, PROVEN).
Claiming "distancing language" is all in your head, so there's nothing to explain.
You've also regurgitated the same nonsense about seeing stars when the question was NOT if the astronauts could see stars, the question put to the astronauts from the late Patrick Moore was if they could see stars in the solar corona (the atmosphere of the sun) in spite of the glare!
That's a VERY specific question, and yet YOU decide Patrick Moore is asking them "Can you see stars".
So right there you prove that you are seeing and hearing what you WANT to see and hear, where you completely ignored the CONTEXT of the question because you WANT to believe in a conspiracy.
You didn't even appreciate the fact that Collins remained orbiting the moon while it was Neil and Buzz who descended to the surface and landed, hence Collins' perspective is a little different to theirs.
So before going any further, explain why you STILL don't understand that context matters, despite me providing this video for you earlier in this thread;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnLHEpwQjM&t=276
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - What a sorry list of excuses from you, where even by your standards it's poor and desperate.
If anyone else made up such a story as evidence to support men landing on the moon, then you would have had none of it.
It would have been unacceptable to you. Fact!
Maybe this, maybe that, could be this, could be that, with absolutely ZERO evidence to support any of your claims and speculation regarding Una, much less to explain why no-one else except Una would report seeing a coke bottle after over 50 years!
So cut the (I'm sorry to say, rather cowardly) defence please and face up to the facts. Una Ronald was lying, where anyone with 'flaming common sense' can see that for themselves based upon the complete lack of ANY evidence AT ALL at ANY LEVEL to support her claims, which would have been impossible had her claims been true, and the fact that NOTHING in her story holds up is further validation for calling her a liar (sweet little old ladies can lie you know :-)).
And there's nothing to explain about Collins or the other astronauts, because by your own admission you said and I quote "It looks to me as if", in other words, this is merely YOUR opinion, not evidence.
As I asked before, present evidence, not opinion, because I'm not interested in discussing claims based upon speculation, assumptions and guesses.
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You continue to prove my points perfectly, so thanks for that, where for some reason you seem to think it's not for Una Ronald and David Percy to prove the hoax claim made!
So Una could have said she saw dancing girls doing the can-can behind the lunar module if she wanted to, and yet you would think that's acceptable as evidence despite the fact that no-one other than Una reports seeing the dancing girls, the time of day she claimed for the live broadcast was wrong, no letters about dancing girls have ever emerged from the newspaper she claimed to have read, but other than that it's not a lie, right? 🙄
You ask me to discuss your irrelevant personal opinion, which I'm not interested in, since it's worthless and therefore pointless.
As I told you already, I'm here to discuss hard evidence, not personal opinion, so questions and observations like "So why did he say this?", "So why did he say that?", "Just look at the way he frowned at that question!", "Look at the way he shifted his weight from his left butt cheek to his right cheek, it's obvious he's lying!", etc, is of no interest to me because it's of no importance other than to the person whose opinion it is.
If you think you have real hard evidence to discuss, then fire away, but if all you've got to offer is your opinion, then I wish you all the best.
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - And the following further proves my point, where you said "Consider it in the light of what one of the witnesses says in later years regarding removing "one of truth's protective layers"".
Where you conveniently fail to quote ALL of what Neil Armstrong said nor state who he was addressing and why, hence that's dishonest cherry picking and quote mining (a popular conspiracy believer tactic)..
And you said "Consider it also in the light of what another of these witnesses (Aldrin) says in later years, when asked why we hadn't been back to the moon: "Because we didn't go there". No doubt you have some spin about context to explain this away.""
There's no spin required to address yet another example of dishonest cherry picking and quote mining.
A little girl asked Buzz and I quote "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?". Notice the words "in such a long time". THAT was the context of the question and hence the context of Buzz Aldrin's reply to the girl, and therefore to claim the question was "why we hadn't been back to the moon" is to distort the question and answer and hence to lie.
Buzz said we haven't gone back because we haven't [gone back] (a flippant answer). He said it's his question because for YEARS he has been asking exactly the SAME question as that girl, where he also wants to know why we stopped going to the moon and he wants to know why we're not going back to the moon!
That was the point Buzz was making, but as usual conspiracy theorists deliberately twisted his words because that's what they always do, and you are happy to go along with their distortion of the facts because you're not interested in the truth.
Here's the full interview, where Buzz makes it clear that he and other men landed on the moon throughout, and you can see and hear the context of his replies to the girl, rather than the quote mining from conspiracy theorists;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4yrzYAJ58Y
That's why I say I'm not interested in that kind of discussion with you, because in EVERY conspiracy theory and alternative belief system I discuss it is packed full of hypocrites who claim they are only looking for the truth and will go and go about how governments are evil and lying etc, and yet they are more than happy to lie and spread lies themselves when those lies happen to support their own beliefs.
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - And just to highlight my point further;
Transcript:
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there [in such a long time] and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money
... is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No!
So why the quote mining all the time? If truth really is on your side, then why do you and so many hoax believers think it's justified to lie and distort the facts to make your case?
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You said "Again you make assumptions. Did I say I was a moon hoax believer? I don't think so. I said I was a moon landing sceptic. "
Ah yes, the classic fallback of "I'm just a sceptic" where the scepticism is totally one sided, where anything from government or authorities is assumed to be a lie unless proven to be true, while everything said by conspiracy theorists are assumed to be the truth unless proven to be lies.
Real scepticism applies to all, not to one side, therefore you are not a sceptic, you are a denier and a contrarian.
Buzz Aldrin did not say we didn't go to the moon, he said we did not go to the moon in the time period specified by that little girl, i.e. in such a long time, the question he was answering. So you automatically siding with conspiracy theorists who twisted his words proves my point.
And I ignored Neil Armstrong's "'one of truth's protective layers" because that is down to personal interpretation ONLY, which I told you already I'm not interested in, where no-one other than conspiracy believers see it as being suspicious or as an admission or some nonsense like that.
If you want to know more about it, then read the following and discuss it with them;
www.quora.com/What-did-Neil-Armstrong-mean-by-%E2%80%9Ctruth%E2%80%99s-protective-layers%E2%80%9D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaimealfaro200 - You said "No atmosphere, no Van Allen radiation belts protecting you. Low orbit temperature swings are also big, though, not so big as between shadows and sunlight in the moon"
There's no atmosphere to protect astronauts in low Earth orbit (LEO) and the Van Allen belts offers NO protection either. Instead the Van Allen belts are particles from the sun trapped within Earth's magnetic field, where it is Earth's magnetic field (magnetosphere) that offers us some protection from cosmic rays (deflects about 1/3 from LEO) and offers some protection from the rare solar storms, but ZERO protection from the electromagnetic radiation from the sun.
So the main radiation of concern are cosmic rays, when in LEO the body of the Earth itself blocks out about 1/3 of the cosmic rays, and so cosmic ray radiation in LEO is about 1/3 the level of deep space.
On the moon's surface, the surface of the moon itself blocks out about 1/2 the cosmic rays, and so cosmic ray radiation on the moon's surface is a fraction higher than LEO.
So overall, radiation levels on the moon's surface are only a little higher than radiation levels in LEO (i.e. mostly cosmic rays), and therefore your made up claim that "Radiation in low orbit is also way lower than at lunar surface" is completely false.
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
@jaimealfaro200 - You said "if you look in the oposite direction from the sun, you would see more stars than you can see here on Earth. You should stick to the subjects you understand."
As a practicing amateur astronomer for around 30 years with a huge interest in all space related topics, including space travel, I do know what I'm taking about son, whereas you don't (look up 'Dunning-Kruger' that you're a good example of).
Here's a few quotes about when we can and cannot see stars, from Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins' 1974 book "Carry the Fire: An Astronaut's Journey" -
[When in orbit around the earth], quote:
"...Out from behind the shadow of the earth, we are into the constant sunlight...Towards the sun, nothing can be seen but its blinding disk, whereas down-sun there is simply a black void. The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil. No, to see the stars, the pupil must be allowed to relax, to open wide enough to let the starlight form a visible image on the retina, and that can be done only by blocking out the sunlight...".
[When in the shadow of the Earth during his Gemini mission], quote:
"My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different; this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human has ever had... My only complaint is that the protective coatings of my visor do not allow an even more spectacular look at the stars."
[When entering the shadow of the moon], quote:
"...To add to the dramatic effect, we find we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the moon now, in darkness for the first time in three days, and the elusive stars have reappeared as if called especially for this occasion...".
[With Neil and Buzz on the surface and whilst in the shadow of the moon], quote:
"...Outside my window I can see stars - and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars".
That is consistent with everything we've heard from Neil and Buzz and other astronauts ever since people first went into space.
Which part of what Michael Collins says about seeing stars do you still not understand?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AM87422S - Incorrect my friend, since what you're claiming is impossible.
To this day, not even the highest budget sci-fi movies or sci-fi TV series have ever recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour upon hour of Apollo footage, where even the dust and objects fall down at the rate of the moon's gravity. Even CGI today doesn't look quite right (CGI often looks a bit 'off', especially when modelling people).
When the popular hoax believer's claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
www.dailymotion.com/video/x6foqzi?start=250
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-)
So the problem is, until someone can actually demonstrate perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence prove it can be done, then any claims that the Apollo footage was faked in a studio will remain unfounded.
In other words, the Apollo footage could only be faked if the studio was located on the moon ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
felix mendez - As usual, you just make it up as you go along. Why don't you tell Amber that you support a guy (Kareem?) who claims all rockets are hoaxes, where he claims they are just tanks filled with helium to make them rise :-)
Stars CAN be seen during the day through telescopes, professional and amateur astronomers (like me) know that from experience, hence we CAN do daytime astronomy, albeit less effective than night.
Star light gets to Earth's surface just as effectively during the day as during the night, BUT, the brightness of our sky (due to scattered sunlight) makes it's very difficult to separate the faint light from the stars from the scattered light of the sun. In other words, scattered sunlight creates 'noise'.
However, the more powerful your telescope, the most powerful it's light collecting abilities, and hence when focused correctly can gather enough like from a star to make it stand out against the blue of our sky.
The astronauts say they can see stars under certain circumstances and they can't see stars under other circumstances, but as usual people like yourself need to distort the facts.
For example, this was how astronauts on the moon's surface viewed their surroundings for 99.99% of the time;
cdni0.trtworld.com/w960/h540/q75/59508_AP_19190543756508_1563576759853.jpg
Kind of difficult to see stars through that visor, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
felix mendez d) Completely untrue. Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006);
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year!).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirms that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whistfull Westerner - You said "oh I have a car that proves you wrong, when it is moving I feel it."
Thank you for proving your ignorance so perfectly :-)
If your car (with windows closed) was travelling on a perfectly smooth road with no dips or rises, then you wouldn't feel it (vibration of the engine aside). Whether you're at 20 mph, 50 mph or 100 mph etc, you couldn't tell without the feedback of what your eyes and ears are telling you.
Travel in a bullet train at 200 mph and you wouldn't feel it. Travel in a passenger plane cruising at 500+ mph and you wouldn't feel it. Travel in Concorde (back in the day) at 1330 mph and you wouldn't feel it.
What you feel are any changes in speed, hence acceleration/deceleration of the craft such as take off and landing, pressing the accelerator or hitting the brakes etc, and changes in speed away from the general direction of the craft, such as bumps and dips and rises on a road, turbulence in the air, etc.
How can you not know that?
You said "so when you are in a car travelling 60 you feel nothing, only the acceleration to say 70 and then nothing."
Acceleration means an INCREASE in speed, deceleration means a DECREASE in speed. Every time you change the speed of your car you feel it, where the faster you change the speed the more you feel it (accelerate quickly and you're pushed back into your seat, brake suddenly and you're thrown forward in your seat).
How can you not know that while claiming to have an Engineering degree (I have a Mathematics and Computing degree btw).
I shouldn't be here explaining that to you, YOU should be here explaining that to others given your claimed qualifications.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whistfull Westerner - You cried "Yes they do, you just lost, GAME OVER, if planes fly over a curve they have to account for it"
No kid, I just explain to you how flaps are used to obtain level flight regardless of the shape of the Earth.
You said "if a bridge is big enough it has to account for it"
No it doesn't. A very long bridge isn't made in ONE WHOLE PIECE and then air lifted into place, instead it is made to follow the LANDSCAPE that it goes over, and therefore will be designed for the NATURAL rise and fall of the LANDSCAPE itself, from valleys to hills/mountains (including going through them).
The fact that in the long term the average rise and fall is on a flat Earth or globe Earth or concave/hollow Earth is irrelevant.
Likewise roads and train tracks follow the natural LANDSCAPE that they go over, where bridges and tunnels are among the methods they would use to overcome certain obstacles.
Therefore by following the LANDSCAPE itself, then bridges and train tracks and roads of almost ANY length can be made, and hence the construction methods would work regardless of whether the Earth is flat, or a globe or concave/hollow. It's the SAME for each.
So again, how can you not understand that simple fact given your claimed qualifications? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@artyinn1215 - Thanks, and no problem, we'll agree to disagree, but... don't you see the problem with Bart Sibrel lying?
Here's some of my thoughts off the top of my head, so forgive the length please :-)
After years of debating conspiracy theories, there is one IMPORTANT thing that most conspiracy believers choose to ignore... the need to separate the 'chaff' claims from the 'wheat' claims.
In other words, it is impossible for ALL the claims in support of a conspiracy theory to be right, since some are always errors and mistakes and misunderstandings and some blatant lies and fantasies, but for some reason conspiracy believers seem to feel compelled to support and defend EVERY ONE of the claims being made.
My view is that conspiracy believers are the people who should be pouring over the conspiracy claims and flagging up all those that are clearly wrong.
That way, if the conspiracy is true, then the truth would be far easier to get too because the remaining claims would be strong evidence, where that evidence isn't buried and hence almost lost under a mountain of false information.
To this day, I have yet to see a moon landing hoax believer (for example) make a video along the lines of "The Top 10 Hoax claims that we Hoax believers should Avoid", where he/she lists the most common false claims like "No stars", "Flag blowing in the wind", "Fatal Van Allen belts" and so on.
The fact that this has never happened proves conspiracy believers overall are not as interested in the truth as they claim to be, instead they WANT to believe the conspiracy so much that they accept any claimed evidence provided, right or wrong :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielstewart4128 -You said "Conspiracy Theorist is just a term created by the CIA to put down anyone looking fot the truth"
No my friend, there's nothing wrong with the term conspiracy theorist, except to those who try to turn that term into a conspiracy :-)
It is FAR more respectful, accurate and honest than the derogatory names used by some, like "Flearthers" or "Flatties" or "Flattards" or "Hoaxers" or "Truthers/Troofers" etc.
Conspiracy - Definition: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful
Apollo hoax believers claim the NASA used billions of dollars of tax payer's money to fake the moon landings and hence it has been covered up by government(s) ever since.
How is that not a conspiracy?
Flat Earth believers claim governments and authorities have hidden the truth about the Earth being flat and hence forced the lie of a Globe Earth upon us for centuries/millennia.
How is that not a conspiracy?
Therefore anyone who comes up with theories about such a claimed conspiracy is a conspiracy theorist! Those who believe the claims made by those conspiracy theorists are conspiracy believers!
It's as simple as that, and therefore objections to the term "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracy believer" is unfounded.
Hence I don't say "Flattard", I say flat Earth believer or conspiracy believer/theorist. I don't say "Hoaxer", I say Apollo hoax believer or conspiracy believer/theorist. Likewise, rocket hoax believer, Mars rover hoax believer, ET alien/UFO believer, Space Shuttle hoax believer, and so on.
So it doesn't make any difference whether the conspiracy is true or not, if something is claimed to be a conspiracy then the theories are conspiracy theories created by conspiracy theorists, and those who believe them are conspiracy believers :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@devilisahomo - Try using your intelligence and stop pretending to be stupid. A bird's eye view means from above straight down throughout the entire area, not from a fixed altitude above ONE location where perspective becomes an issue.
I doubt there's a single person reading this who doesn't understand the concept of representing a 2D layout of an area on a piece of paper, except you for some reason.
Hence it doesn't matter if that area is the ground floor of your home+garden, or the plans of a large housing estate, or a map of farm houses and the surrounding fields, or the map of an entire town/city.
EVERYONE understands that the 2D layout of such an area, including an entire city, can be accurately represented on a 2D surface, such as a piece of paper, i.e. a map (either physical or virtual).
The heights of building and the altitude of the terrain etc is irrelevant, unless specifically needed and therefore such information can be represented in another form, such as a contour map (does that confuse you too?).
So please explain why you find it so difficult to understand the simple concept of a map, something that even a child could understand :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good, we're getting there, i.e. to the key point :-)
We can map any size 2D layout on a single sheet of paper, changing the overall scale as required.
Hence on that sheet of paper, we can accurately map the layout of your home+garden, or the layout of a housing estate, or the layout of your town/city.
So where's the accurate 2D map of the entire flat Earth? It doesn't exist! Even the AE/Gleason map is NOT an accurate 2D map of a flat Earth (some flat Earth believers are reluctantly beginning to accept that now).
Remember the test I mentioned with your city map, where you can measure the distance between ANY two locations in your city and work out the distance in the real world?
There's no 2D map of a flat Earth which will allow you to do that.
To prove the map of your city is not accurate, all someone has to do is find two locations on that map where the distance is NOT the same as it is in the real world.
Take any map claimed to be a flat Earth map, and we can find countless examples where the distances between them on the map is NOT the same as in the real world.
Surely if the Earth was flat then an accurate map should exist by now, it should be easy to create given all the maps of town and cities and countries, especially after over 150 years of published flat Earth books. But no such map can be found.
However, there is an accurate map of the Earth....
1
-
Now take a physical globe of the Earth (the bigger it is and the higher the quality the better), then select ANY two locations on that globe, measure the length between those locations and work out the distance in miles (based upon the size/scale of the globe) and it will match the distance measured for real for that same journey on Earth, either by land or sea or air.
That works for ABSOLUTELY ANY TWO LOCATIONS on Earth . No errors, no discrepancies, just accurate distances no matter which two locations you choose to measure on your globe. (just like the accurate map of your town/city).
NO OTHER SHAPE offers that result, much less a flat circle like the AE/Gleason map hijacked by flat Earth theorists.
So to claim the Earth is not shaped like a globe, you need to provide another shape for which the map of the Earth offers accurate distances for ANY two locations chosen .
Likewise, to prove the Earth is not a globe, all you need to do is find two locations where the measurement of the distance between them on the physical globe is DIFFERENT to the distance measured in the real world.
Until then, that evidence alone is enough to prove the map of the Earth arranged around a globe is accurate, it works, it has worked for centuries, and therefore the globe is the correct shape of the Earth.
1
-
@devilisahomo - Lets stay focused on the shape of the Earth for now, where we can look at some of your other claims later :-)
And yes, I can provide other solid proof that the Earth is a globe, but I shall bring the map discussion to a close as follows:
Approach a well educated flat Earth believer with a high IQ and asked him to bring the best flat Earth map he can find. Then approach a Globe Earth believer with only an average education and an average IQ and ask him to bring the best Globe of the Earth he can find.
Now you set them a challenge. You will give them both the exact (confirmed) distance between two locations on Earth which they can each find on their Globe/map.
From that, they will both be able to tell you how many miles are represented by 1 millimeter on their Globe/map by measuring it.
You will now give them two completely different locations on Earth for which they must tell you the distance in the real world ONLY by measuring it on their Globe/map to work out the miles from the number of millimeters.
You repeat this for 9 more pairs of different locations on Earth, where you're asking for an accuracy of say plus or minus 5% of the real world distance (quite generous).
At the end of the test you check their results:
The distances from the clever flat Earth believer using his map will be mostly, if not all, completely wrong. In contrast, all the distances from the average Globe Earth believer using his globe will be correct!
You can give them both 100 or 1000 more pairs of locations (as diverse as possible) on Earth to measure and the result would be the same, where distances measured from the flat Earth map will be mostly wrong (some of them WAY out), but all the distances measured from the map of the Earth on a GLOBE will be correct!
That can only work if the Earth is a globe, and therefore that is solid proof that the Earth is a globe :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@devilisahomo - 1) Lying to yourself doesn't make your point, it only makes mine. Antarctica on a globe of the Earth is larger than the USA, so on what basis do you claim it's tiny.
Just the fact that you claimed Antarctica is tiny on a globe proves a) You do no research yourself, and b) You allow your bias to get in the way of facts.
2) Australia is the correct size, shape and distance from others land masses on a globe of the Earth, but completely wrong on all claimed flat Earth maps. FACT.
Here for example is a comparison of confirmed distances between locations on Earth, and note the rounded distances measured on a physical globe of the Earth compared to the claimed flat Earth map (AE/Gleason);
https://ibb.co/bud1Xf
Just look at Australia on that map, where it is stretched to twice as long as it is in the real world.
Just look at how far out some of the distances are. The globe Earth map distances are correct. The flat Earth map distances are wrong.
Look at the direct flight path of Buenos Aires (Argentina) to Auckland (New Zealand), which takes around 12 hours on the Globe map distance (6440 miles), meaning the plane travels an average of 536 mph.
On the Flat Earth map distance (15,700 miles), the plane would need to travel an average of 1308 mph. That the maximum speed of CONCORDE for 12 HOURS.
So go ahead and tell me why you still believe Buenos Aires is 15,700 miles from Auckland on your flat Earth map :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA lost the ability to send people into space after the Space Shuttle was retired, but that doesn't mean the Shuttle was a hoax or previous US rockets were a hoax.
Concorde first flew in 1969 and yet since 2003 we haven't had a passenger plane capable of travelling faster than the speed of sound, much less twice the speed of sound like Concorde.
And Don Pettit was talking about rebuilding OLD retired technology, which never happens for the reasons he gave, and therefore we create NEW craft if we want those capabilities back (like the SLS and Orion).
ALL the 'destroyed' Apollo technology can be found intact in numerous science and aeronautical museums.
Anyway with the world's most powerful rocket, NASA's SLS, due to launch next year, and rockets from Space X and other private US companies, and manned space capsules like Orion and those from private US companies, the USA will very soon have all that technology back again and more.
As for their actions being questionable and odd, in what way exactly?
People make assumptions about this press conference without a) Realizing it actually took place 3 WEEKS after the astronauts returned to Earth, where they spent those 3 WEEKS in quarantine, and b) The astronauts behaved no different in this press conference than they did in previous press conferences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elisereneekouloukas301 - "Didn't go there" in the time specified by the question, i.e. in such a long time, i.e. since 1972, i.e. didn't go there since 1972.
So again it's not my opinion, it's a fact. If Buzz said what you claim then it would have been picked up by at least ONE reporter or journalist worldwide in the 2 YEARS since (they don't miss a trick or an opportunity for fame).
So go ahead and prove me wrong by presenting a link to just ONE article from a credible reporter/journalist who says that was Buzz admitting they never landed on the moon.
Just ONE. Failure to do that proves my point (and I've been asking that from people like you for nearly 2 YEARS and I'm still waiting for just ONE example :-)).
I find it amusing that you actually think that every reporter and every journalist on EARTH would somehow miss Buzz publicly saying the moon landings were a hoax, and yet it's only you and your group of 'special' woken people who have spotted what the rest of the world has missed :-D
Arch Angel X simply ripped that moment from the original video, something that even YOU could do, so that point of yours is irrelevant.
In every poll carried out worldwide about the moon landings, only a small MINORITY think it was a hoax! So by your logic, I must be right because the majority of people agree with me and therefore the minuscule number who visited this video is irrelevant.
But unlike you I don't subscribe to such simplistic thinking, I go by the facts, and the facts says Buzz did not claim we haven't gone to the moon, and the facts says men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972, and the facts says the Earth is a globe (but you're afraid to discuss that :-)).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - Why do you need me to teach you? Do you have official news TV channels and/or official news TV programmes in your country? Do you have official news programmes on the main radio stations? Do you have official national newspapers in your country? I'm sure the answer is yes.
If you have, then those are credible media outlets for news. They are official. Whether they lean to the left, or lean to the right or centre, whether you agree with their politics or not, whether they're not always correct, whether you see them as totally bias, isn't the point, they are official and hence credible news outlets in terms of journalism where what ever they say is taken seriously. Yes?
So upon seeing Buzz being interviewed by that little girl, I'm waiting for your examples of such news outlets who came to the conclusion that Buzz admitted the moon landings were a hoax and hence they reported it as such and had no doubts about their conclusions.
People who set up their own news channels on YT or a journalist's blog or opinion piece etc is not the same, since they are not official and therefore not credible.
You mentioned the Washington Post, so go ahead and post your link to the Washington Post reporting as fact that Buzz admitted the moon landings were a hoax. No doubts, no questions, not a mischievous piece to amuse their readers, but a statement of fact based upon what Buzz said in that interview (i.e. they took it seriously).
Btw, I just found the following while I'm waiting for your link: www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - Thank you for finally providing what I asked you for, but as you've conceded (and I've checked by translating that link into English), it does not come to the conclusion that Buzz said the moon landings never happened, instead it's more along the lines of being a "mischievous piece" that I referred to, where as you said it looks at both sides, for example;
Quote: "What if Buzz Aldrin had never been to the Moon? This is the question raised by a new video which recently emerged on the internet in which we hear the astronaut admit that he had never been on the lunar surface.
At least, this is one of the interpretations that can be made of his words when he answers a question asked by a little girl."
My objection here was to your comment and I quote "Buzz admitted to a child that we haven't gone back in such a long time because we didn't go there." where you stated that as a certainty without giving Buzz the benefit of the doubt of not explaining his point as clearly as he could have.
The article you found makes it clear that there are multiple interpretations, and therefore it doesn't come to the conclusion that you came to, it leaves it open for the reader.
You said "Just to make my position clear. I'm not interested in the moon landings per se; I'm interested in truth and lies and understanding what our mainstream media is."
Ok, but it doesn't really help if you're quick to refer to those who say the official line is correct as being shills :-) Definition: A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
You said "Did you notice in the context of the full interview that Buzz leaves out walking on the moon altogether?"
Buzz has described what it's like to walk on the moon many many times, where in fact his description is sometimes quite long because during Apollo 11 he spent a lot of time experimenting with different ways to move around (we can see it in the footage), hence I doubt he wants to go through that whole explanation every time someone asks him.
You said "If people just understand what our mainstream media is and how it operates that's a big step to being able to make money in the stock market."
The point is, proof of men landing on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972 has nothing to do with what any government or media says (a very important point that many people miss).
Thank you for the discussion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stillperfectgenerations5852 - Again, we can return to this discussion next year AFTER the SLS rocket launches and Orion goes to the moon and back (where you will claim it's a hoax, right? :-)).
As for technology, the last time I checked we no longer have a passenger plane capable of taking 100 people across the Atlantic at TWICE the speed of sound. In fact, today's passenger planes can't even reach the speed of sound.
And yet 'we' were able to do that with Concorde for decades, a passenger plane that first in 1969 (recognize the year?) :-)
Aircraft technology hasn't gone backwards, there simply wasn't a need for another plane like Concorde until it could be done easier, more efficiently and hence more economically.
Likewise rocket technology hasn't gone backwards, there simply wasn't a need for a rocket like the Saturn V to get people to the moon until it could be done easier, more efficiently and hence more economically, and that's what we'll get with the SLS.
If Space X continue to successfully develop its reusable rockets, then that technology with eventually replace the still expensive mostly use-once SLS technology, making it easier and more economical to send craft into low Earth orbit and to the moon and beyond, including manned craft.
Next? :-)
[Back later...]
1
-
1
-
@stillperfectgenerations5852 - You said "So, will Orion be manned? The NASA exec already said 2024 was never going to happen son!"
Orion is a space capsule son, not a lunar lander.
Provide your link to NASA admitting not sending people to the moon in 2024 (and no, I'm not talking about Trump's push for them to land in 2024).
In other words, either put up or shut up.
Again, when the SLS launches next year with the Orion space capsule, then assuming the mission is a success, then they would have proven they have the technology to send people to the moon and back to Earth, just as they did during Apollo 8 and Apollo 10.
Landing on the moon is just the next step with a lander, which again Trump is trying to push into 2024.
Regarding cognitive dissonance, don't use terms you don't understand please, it only makes you appear more ignorant than you've already shown :-)
1
-
1
-
@stillperfectgenerations5852 - Thank you for providing a link that confirms what I said, where the NASA manager casts doubt about LANDING on the moon in 2024, nothing about doubting their ability to send people to the moon in 2023/2024 as originally planned.
So to repeat what I said before and I quote "That was the plan BEFORE Trump, where the next step was for a mission to the SURFACE of the moon in 2028.
Trump has been pushing to bring the 2028 mission forward to 2024 for his own motives, which I've argued numerous times is unnecessarily risky and hence unlikely."
So try READING and UNDERSTANDING the links you post next time, otherwise you'll only make a fool of yourself yet again. Is that clear? :-)
As for that out of context YouTube video that I've seen already, lol, show me the whole interview/program please.
Remember, you are a flat Earth believer, so why are you even mentioning the Van Allen belts? They are completely invisible, we can't see them or detect them from the surface of the Earth and hence they were not detected until spacecraft with Geiger counters entered them in 1958.
So my question is, who is the source that YOU trust over the existence of the VABs?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stillperfectgenerations5852 - You cried "Op Fishbowl proves the Firmament, over a Flat Earth."
No son, it proves you're a coward who can't accept the fact that you've been proven wrong :-)
Operation Fishbowl doesn't fit in with ANY flat Earth model, which is why you can't explain how it does, where it contradicts FE claims that nothing man made can reach such altitudes.
So before asking for the same evidence you've been given before, you still have to explain how Operation Fishbowl fits in with any flat Earth model.
Simply put, if a rocket can reach the dome as you claim, then you are also saying a rocket can reach the moon and the sun.
flatearthmodels.com/collections
miro.medium.com/max/1425/0*KtxLDkMWeQMH7xBb.jpg
You said "V.B. was a nazi atheist", which is amusing given that one of the most popular FE theorists around today, Eric Dubay, is a holocaust denier and Nazi sympathizer who claims Hitler was a man of piece :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wildboar7473 - Typical lies from you (if truth is on your side, then why do you always need to lie?) :-)
Thomas, ALL the moon rocks given out by NASA as gifts to nations were encased in resin (Lucite) to preserve them, where they were also catalogued and mounted on a plaque. NASA NEVER gave out valuable moon rocks unprotected where they would be exposed to air, water, sweat, coffee spills, micro-organisms, etc.
The claim that the unprotected single lump of petrified wood was from the moon was an error made by the Rijksmuseum (an ART museum), where they incorrectly assumed that the unprotected and uncatalogued rock they inherited was from the moon.
That rock was donated to the museum by the family of the former Dutch Prime Minister, William Drees after he died. It was given to William Drees by the US ambassador to commemorate the astronaut's visit to the Netherlands;
media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg
The museum were warned in 2006 that the rock was highly unlikely to be from the moon because it was given to William Drees just 3 months after Apollo 11 (NASA gave out moon rocks as gifts 1 YEAR after Apollo 11), but they ignored the warning and displayed it as a moon rock.
3 years later that warning was proven to be correct when a visiting geologist saw the rock and IMMEDIATELY knew it can't be from the moon and informed the museum.
The moon rocks given to the Dutch are actually in the Boerhaave museum (in storage), as reported here before the petrified rock story broke in 2009;
youtube.com/watch?v=xNMnPkQZNjk
And remember, that was 2009, 11 YEARS ago, hence if NASA were giving out fake rocks then wouldn't you expect more 'fake' moon rocks to have been discovered by now? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomashall9182 - Come on, really? Here's the documentary that we're talking about here (Bart Sibrel's "Astronauts gone wild");
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhTqrSX5N4M
At 23:10 Alan Bean swears on the Bible and yet Bart still claims he's lying, which means swearing on the Bible meant nothing.
At 32:46 Eugene Cernan swears on the Bible and yet Bart doesn't seem satisfied.
At 46:41 Ed Mitchell swears on the Bible and yet Bart still claims he's a liar, which means swearing on the Bible meant nothing.
So that's 3 astronauts who swore on the Bible, the others (rightfully) didn't because they knew it would be pointless.
NONE of them changed their minds as you claimed (where did you get that idea from?).
So the only proven liar is Bart himself. Not only does he claim to the astronauts who swore on his Bible that he asked 6 other astronauts and none of them swore on the Bible, but in his hoax film called "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon", the same film he showed clips from to the astronauts, his earth in a window hoax claim is a proven lie, as the following video shows perfectly;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jghYBAI3i6o&t=59
Bart ended up in court years later, charged with vandalism for jumping up and down on the hood of a woman's car over a parking dispute (says a lot about the guy, doesn't it? :-)).
So, what was that you were saying about facts? :-)
1
-
1
-
@thomashall9182 - You said "Present the non-refutable facts, starting with the noise generated on the moon, in a vacuum, by hammering"
I'll have a go... Here's the video featuring the claimed hammering sounds, but rather than just a few cherry picked seconds, several minutes are available here to avoid the cherry picking we see in hoax videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JVtzVN3ncg
The hammering starts at 2:07 and ends at 2:56, but notice the complete lack of any so-called hammering sounds for most of the times he hits the core sampler!
At 2:08 we do hear two 'knocking' sounds, but we also hear EXACTLY the same two 'knocking' sounds at 5:04 (as revealed on the two links below);
https://youtu.be/5JVtzVN3ncg?t=128
https://youtu.be/5JVtzVN3ncg?t=304
At 2:21, we hear the 3 'knocking' sounds that the hoax claim focuses on and one sound at 2:27, but again, the rest is completely silent, therefore just like the sounds at 2:08 and 5:04 it has nothing to do with the hammer hitting the core sampler.
If we really were hearing the sound of the astronaut hammering the core sampler into the lunar surface, then we should hear a knocking sound for every hit, not silence for most of the 49 seconds of hammering!
Watch and listen to that FULL clip from 2:00 to 3:00 and notice that the few 'knocking' sounds heard are out of sync with the hammer, and there's no sound at all for most of the hammering. And again, notice that the same double knocking sound heard at 2:08 is also heard at 5:04 :-)
The point is, throughout Apollo footage we hear all kinds of random noises from time to time, especially clicks and pops, and sometimes sounds from the astronauts breathing out heavily when they're doing something strenuous (like hammering?), where for 99.99% of the time no-one cares or even notices all those sounds.
But the moment such a noise happens to coincide with something seen on screen (which MUST happen by the law of averages) conspiracy theorists pounce to claim we're hearing noise travel through the vacuum of space.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fredrikhamar4374 - That doesn't address the point I made.
To this day, not even the highest budget sci-fi movies or sci-fi TV series have ever recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour upon hour of Apollo footage, where even the dust and objects fall down at the rate of the moon's gravity. Even CGI today doesn't look quite right (CGI often looks a bit 'off', especially when modelling people).
When the popular hoax believer's claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6BXaGEuqxo&t=247
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-)
So the problem is, until someone can demonstrate perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence prove it can be done, then any claims that the Apollo footage was faked in a studio will remain unfounded.
That proves the Apollo footage was filmed in an environment with 1/6 gravity and no air, and the only location that fits that description is the moon, hence proving the footage shows astronauts on the moon.
If someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates their own uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that person/team has PROVEN it IS possible to fake the Apollo footage.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were fake, but it would mean it is possible to fake the footage seen. But that has never happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1