Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

from 0:38

I agree, but Halcyon Dayz, FCD is a 'BIG ONE' shill, not little.

BUMP

OK, lets see what's involved in going to the Moon...

You need to design a spacecraft...well, a couple of spacecraft...but before you do that you have to design the mission.

To design the spacecraft, you also need to design the tools and machines to create the parts and assemble the ships. Then you need to design and build the buildings for creating and building the spaceship. Now you need to do the same for the rocket that will launch the thing. But to do that, you need to determine what "mode" you will use for the mission...EOR? LOR? Direct? This decision determines what sort of craft you will need, fuel/engine requirements etc. Then you need to go back and redetermine the facility to build the various parts, the tooling/jigs etc. Any mission changes will ripple through all of this..

Oh, you also need to assemble and launch the thing.We have LC39, originally created for Apollo, modified for Shuttle, and now being re-worked for Constellation. It's expensive, and any changes in the rocket hardware also affects the launch complex.

Finally, you need public support...no, you need public enthusiasm. Folks gotta be excited about this stuff, cause it's gonna be expensive as Hell. It will dig into folk's pet programs for funding, so you better be sure you have full dedication of the people.

Today, it seems ignorance and crude demeanor is celebrated over education and decorum. Society is too busy worrying about their "stuff" and their interests to think for any time about bigger things beyond themselves. There's no "reason" for such endeavors as going to the Moon again. Sure, we have Constellation slowly plodding along, but it will need a major boost in funding if it will get off the ground in a timely manner.

Meanwhile, Apollo brough back Moonrocks...and they helped in determining the origin of the Moon. We went there 9 times including the non-landing missions. The documentation (far, far more than the hoax community is aware of) provides thorough proof of the missions.

So for the hoaxers, you can bleat and demean, cuss and belittle all you like, but it doesn't change the facts, and it doesn't make you any better a person. You cannot argue what you refuse to understand, and you look feeble when you try...

Are you fucking delusional

Delusional? How about "informed"?

See, you hoaxers just parrot the same hoax stories, without taking a second to try to understand your opponents' evidence. Apollo, like any space endeavor, is based on science, engineering, orbital mechanics, math...you know, stuff that requires some effort to learn.

But saying "this looks odd, so it must be fake." "The LM looks like it was decorated by a 3 year old"...and somehow this just becomes accepted fact in your community.

Meanwhile, those with some education know full well that the Apollo landings were entirely real. The tracking and telemetry, the engineering, the design of the rockets and spacecraft, the life support systems, the trans lunar trajectory (which rapidly skirted the edges of the Van Allen belts due to the inclination of the originating Earth orbit)...lots of details that you haven't bothered to find.
Because you're to busy trying to tear others down, while you could be learning something you never knew. There is not one person with credentials that sees anything "fake" about Apollo. the Kaysings, Rene's and Whites of the world don't know what they talk about, they have never looked at a book or paper about thermodynamics, radiation or spacecraft guidance.

And neither have you...and it makes you look really foolish. Study some science, look at the subjects you so casually call "fake"...

Now, That is a real cracker! Thanks!

I can't believe all of you are talking about ONE flag, when there were so many moon landings and flags posted every single time. Which moon landing are you talking about? What was THAT flag made of? Are you talking about one of several other moon landings? What was THAT flag made of? Do you really think they bought a whole bunch of flags from one place for all future moon landings? Do any of you stop for a moment to realize that the answer depends on which moon landing is being referenced?

Ok I actually wanted to give it a chance but then i stopped watching then they said that no rockets would work in the vacuum of space lol

Yeah, that's about the level of science education we're dealing with here...lots of willful, and proud, ignorance.

I am new here and so not familiar with the system's logistics. I posted this as a "new thread" under General Conspiracies. Forgive me for posting the same thing twice, but I figure if anyone is interested in the post, here is where it should be;

THE APOLLO SCAM IN A NUTSHELL

In Apollo astronaut Michael Collins' "classic" telling of the American moon landing effort, "CARRYING THE FIRE"(my paperback edition, Ballantine, 1975), Collins makes the claim that Frank Borman's Apollo 8 cislunar illness was "Space Adaptation Syndrome" based. As a matter of fact, Borman is alleged by Collins to have been the first American astronaut to have experienced symptoms related to this malady of THE ORDER OF THE ZERO G, and said problem accounted for Borman's nausea and vomiting during his rather famous cislunar illness.

Collins' spin on the tale is ever so interesting, and more to the point, REVEALING AND INCRIMINATING. As the story originally appeared in the real time of the space flight, and as reported over and over and over again in the newspapers of the day, Borman had DIARRHEA in addition to his nausea and vomiting, BAD DIARRHEA. Why is it that Collins leaves out the diarrhea in his recounting of the Apollo 8 saga? Well, the diarrhea, were it to have been real, would have been potentially infectious. In addition, the foul liquid stool could have gummed up the ship's electronic works, just as was "feared" might be the case with the water leak in the staged Apollo 15 mission.

Stories like the Borman diarrhea in space yarn were told/scripted to add realism to the staged missions. In some cases, as this one, they realized in retrospect, the script as originally delivered was incriminating, and as such, they changed the story after the fact. Our CATCHING THEM RETELL THESE MANY STORIES IN LESS INCRIMINATING TERMS, OUR CATCHING THEM IN THESE LIES, IS AN APPROACH MY COLLEAGUES AND I REFER TO AS "NARRATIVE ANALYSIS" AND IT IS THE BEST/SUREST/MOST POTENT METHOD FOR DEMONSTRATING THE FRAUDULENCE OF THE APOLLO MISSIONS. As both stories cannot be true, as Borman cannot both have had and not have had diarrhea, we know both stories to be bogaus and therefore know all of Apollo to be fraudulent, every mission, every silly phony quindar "BEEP BEEP LINE".

Indeed, in the case under discussion, the case dealing with the Baloney based Borman cislunar diarrhea episode, Borman himself changed the story in his own retelling upon his return to earth. In an article Borman penned himself which appeared in LIFE MAGAZINE January 17, 1969, Borman wrote of his cislunar space illness and left out the bit about the diarrhea, just as Collins did, knowing the story did not add up, and now that the diarrhea was out of the bag, the fraud perpetrators had to do something to clean it up. The first approach was to pretend they never told the bogus tale about Borman having the runs to begin with. A nice video by 2 of my colleagues addresses this whole silly smelly business quite well;

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to www.youtube.com]

hey hi again fattydash/ dr patrick

Absolutely correct and good insight. ^5!!! 5*s.

we `apollotards' are well aware of this and have been for years
Are you aware that the reflectors return a much high number of photons than the lunar surface, and it can then be determined if you hit the reflector or missed???

"New here," right.

Is there anywhere left on the web that Doctor Socks is actually new to?

Perhaps he meant he got a new crate of socks.

his choice of such `shitty' subject matter always gives him away- he seems to have a real poo fetish...

Wrong. One word.

Radiation.

BEYOND. Van. Allen. Belt.

DEAD. LY.

Van Allen changed his story. It is documented that he now contradicts himself.

Let's not forget "the astronauts were SO lucky that there were no solar flare activity during their missions", propaganda which was spewed for years. Even "scientists" have been documented making this claim.

Which has been proven false. There were solar flares during EVERY Apollo moon mission.

"we `apollotards' are well aware of this and have been for years"

Really? Didn't see many, or should I say ANY, of you pointing out how misleading that mythbusters episode was.

In fact, it was high-fives all around for the Apollogists. Take that hoaxers. Yeah, git sum mythbusters. Reflectors bitches. Man on da moon.

BUT, then it was pointed out that lasers had been reflected off the moon BEFORE Apollo. Uh-oh. Quick, what do we do? Do what we always do. Move the goal-posts.

LOL.

one word

wrong

radiation from nasa
[link to lsda.jsc.nasa.gov]

and we all know nasa lies (say unlike dr fattydash PMSL)

radiation from the USSR
[link to cdsweb.cern.ch]



care to show that documentation, because I have seen documentation from him denying this and that the hoaxers stories are a pack of `bs'

Jays letter to the actual Dr Van Allen and his reply are well known after the nonsense fox tv show that popularized that whole business in the first place

I would like to see these `Appologists all high fiving it posts' myself, as when that episode first aired, most of the forums debunking moon landing denialists ripped it to shreds with all the bad science it used

'Hoaxie' and 'aware of scientific facts' don't go in the same sentence unless it is linked with 'aren't'.
Being scientifically literate and being a hoaxie are mutually exclusive.


Case in point: a hoaxie who for some reason thinks solar flares are omnidirectional.

But that's not the same thing as bouncing lasers off it.

You could work out what the laser is reflecting of by the intensity of the reflected/scattered laser light.

If the laser was scattering of sand it would scatter in all directions and the return signal would be very weak. If the laser light is reflected of a retro reflector (lots of little mirrors at 90 degrees to each other like in a reflector on a bycycle) the laser beam is sent back on the same path is arrived on and the detected signal would be far higher.

I am having trouble understanding why you think it is I am trying to "hide" in some way. I am very open about who I am, what i think, where i have posted before, and if I am a new poster at a forum, I am sure to identify myself as new to that forum. I believe I posted some of my groups favorite just for yuks videos right out of the blocks here. Doesn't look like anyone is trying to pretend to be anyone other than he/she is.

[link to www.youtube.com]

My friends and I are proud of our work. Those that follow us, realize we have made more progress with respect to uncovering the truth about the Apollo fraud than any other group working on the subject.

If you would care to say something substantive..... have any evidence from the medical literature to share with the group here supporting NASA's claim that Alan Shepard's 40dB Meniere's Disease based hearing loss was actually "cured" by way of a William House shunt surgery? Do you have any evidence from the medical literature supportive of NASA's claim that Deke Slayton's well established paroxysmal atrial fibrillation could just "go away"?

Didn't think so. Be happy to respond to any counters of yours with content.

The presence of a LRRR on the surface of the moon and its functionality in no way proves men placed the reflector(s) there. The Russians placed LRRRs on the moon. they never claimed to have landed men there.

You have friends? Or do you mean the multiple sock puppet accounts you create at every thread in every forum you defecate on?

You are AWESOME!!!

Check your NASA link. It states "no major solar event occured during the Apollo missions."

Thank you for proving one of my points!

Yes, lasers will reflect much better off retro-reflectors. My point here is that mythbusters led people to believe you HAD TO HAVE reflectors on the moon to bounce a laser, which is NOT true.

Your "case-in-point" is an excellent example of moving the goal-posts. If solar flares are not omni-directional, then why not just say that in the first place? Instead "scientists", including whoever wrote the article your Aussie friend linked above, LIED.

How many lies does your truth require?

Notice hoaxies can't even be consistent with themselves.

If it is, as you claim, deadly outside the VARB, then it doesn't matter whether a solar flare hit or not.



By the way, you were probably unaware that just like terrestrial storms, solar storms have classes. Not every summer squall wipes out the Texas coast, after all (although some seasons it certainly seems like it!)

Plus of course flares have directionality.

So, yes, the scientists who have said both "We were lucky they didn't get hit with a flare" and "there were several flares during the flights" were being entirely consistent.

Perhaps you could learn from them.

What about the practicing physician at the last forum you ran away from?

You get no points for intellectual honesty from me, doc. How does it feel knowing you are using a false argument and can only hope to get away with it due to the ignorance at your chosen venue?