Do you really think man walked on the moon/???

...


From where? The Industrial Revolution? The Mesolithic? Rocketry goes back WELL before the Kennedy speech. The leap was from simple orbital flights to sufficient staging to land on the Moon and return. Still significant, but not like they had to invent spacecraft during the first year!

...


And? The computational power jammed into an iPhone is driven by market forces. It is sold to the consumer as being important, inventive, and necessary. But for a vast majority of business tasks (or even daily tasks), it doesn't do much but get you a few percent improved efficiency -- wrapped up in a really fancy looking package.

Are you saying you can't build a steel mill, perform surgery, detect new subatomic particles, design an aircraft, win at Indianapolis without this year's computer? All of this is done more better with, but was done readily enough without. And it doesn't need a computer of some arbitrary quality. It isn't like someone comes along and says, "You can't do this computation; your video card isn't fast enough."

This is not saying computing wasn't necessary. It is saying you can't draw some arbitrary line. I mean; why not draw the line five years further, and say you couldn't do anything that we take for granted TODAY because we don't yet own the computers they will be making in 2025!

...


Yes. It is a significant problem. Because nobody is interested in a reply. They are interested in long-duration missions, Mars missions, and the like, and solar radiation becomes more significant on that time frame.

...


You don't know, yet you claim to know the missions weren't possible? I don't know what kind of tires they use at Indianapolis, so should I go around claiming F1's are impossible?

Incidentally, the lunar surface isn't significant. Yes, there is both naturally occurring nucleotides, and some short-lived isotopes from interaction with high-energy cosmic rays. But this background is well below what you'd see from the exposed rocks around a typical village in the Urals.

The primary danger is the Sun, and the danger there is the active Sun, aka solar flares. The typical spectrum from the quiet Sun has too little at significant energies to be that interesting. But a flare that hit you without proper warning and protection could ruin your day.

...


That is incorrect. You may want to read up.

But you are also committing a prior error of assumption. The suit is not the equivalent of a man in shirtsleeves toting around an umbrella or whatever to protect himself from conditions. It is a thermos bottle.

Your typical cheap (but glass, mind you, not those fake plastic ones) thermos bottle can keep coffee hot through a twelve-hour shift. I've used them plenty of times for just that. Are you saying that NASA can't build something at LEAST as good as the thermos bottle workers used to pack in their lunch?

Point being, the temperature of the local rocks wasn't as important as the temperature of the man inside the suit -- and the electronics, as well. Plus the not inconsiderable issue that their breathing gas was compressed.

So the suit wasn't dealing with dramatic changes. It was dealing with a constant influx of heat that it had to get rid of. Heat in the ballpark of 100 watts, in fact. Which makes the math pretty simple, by the by.

...


Lines seen on video (never photograph) are inconsistent. They don't show up in the same places, at the same kinds of times, and they don't show up in the RIGHT places. They don't pass through the center of gravity, they aren't placed where they would need to be to suspend.

Nor is there any movement of the handful the hoax believers like to talk about that is consistent with a pickup. There is always rotation in more than one plane. You just have to look properly to see it.

Nor are the moves "impossible." Just unexpected -- especially for people who haven't studied the suits and know nothing about their internal construction (no; it isn't just a bag filled with air, and it doesn't behave like a costume. It reacts significantly to movement, and in complex ways...there are both expansion joints and springs involved).



...


No. I can't tell which you are referring to, but I can name the two most likely specifics (or, rather, one specific and one generalized group) and they can both be demonstrated at length to be incorrect.

But you'd have to make the effort to be specific before anyone would chase down which of these old claims you were referring to (the third-party mislabeled video segment, that is, or Jack White's infamous inability to do a simple overlay correctly).

...


Not seen, not standard to any motion picture or television standard of lighting practice, not plausible by any practice in ANY lighting field I know of, not evident by ANY of the usual signs. In short; entirely the function of people with poor perceptual skills, strong pre-opinions, and a lack of any applicable experience that leads them to think they know how movies are lit (and prevents them from any knowledge of how light behaves in the real world).

...


D'uh. Different application.

First off, you'd sweat yourself to death. The coolant system wasn't designed to work in atmosphere.

In other news, those new sharkskin suits that were all the rage a couple Olympics back are totally useless for ice diving. And no America's Cup yacht yet has proven to be any good at off-road driving.

This.

There are so many discrepencies at this point

that the argument for no consopiracy basically comes down to "trust me, science says we did it."

Unfortunatly for me and many others, the resivoir of trust has been exhausted. Our government lies. Period.

Anyone saying otherwise at this point is either in denial or an operative for the Establishment.

Now that does not automatically mean that they lied about the moon.

But when you consider just how important the space program is as part of the fabric of the establishment's efforts to control the narritive about our real situation in the cosmos, again it becomes a matter of denial to think they have not lied and manipulated the facts.

Guys like Astro can spend all day throwing numbers and history at what people on a gut instinct level feel is wrong, and the reason it does not and will not ever matter is he is ultimatly just "using a word in the definition of that word" i.e he is just using the Establishments own "facts" to prove more "facts". Its just more "Hey, trust me, I wouldn't lie to you, right?".

...

I have yet to see a single discrepancy.
...

Better than saying a child wearing a sweater in a Kubrick film says we didn't do it.
...

I see, so ISS doesn't exist either, right? Our government says it does and you just told me they lie, period, so it must be a lie just like Apollo. I guess that means I should disregard my own observational data that says it exists.
...

No true scotsman fallacy.
...

No, a scene in the movie The Shining means they lied about the moon.
...

I see, so they lied about ISS as well; it's just as important to the narrative about the real situation in the cosmos and our place within it, PLUS it has all that fun international "one world order" stuff mixed in! TWO conspiracies for the price of one!
...

I see, so amateur astronomers are now part of "the establishment." You're right about one thing, no amount of evidence can ever change that kind of irrational thinking. "Gut instinct" translates to, "I'm going to believe this no matter what evidence you throw at me." You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get themselves into.

...


Astro, buddy, no one gives a shit what you have to say who isn't already happy with everything their government tells them.

But again, you just keep on using a word in the definition of that same the word.

Its what you do best.