Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?

I don't like proving or disproving one subject by discussing the validity of an entirely different subject. It's also logically impossible and irrelevant, start a new thread about new subjects.

Lets stick to the Apollo moon story here and let the pro-NASA people present the evidence for their outlandish claims that they went to the moon.

The problem all pro-NASA Apollo people have is that there is simply zero credible evidence that they went. ZERO. None at all. Their arguments all end with 'Trust NASA and material from NASA'. There's more evidence that Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds is real than for Apollo.

Zero evidence you accept you mean... there is plenty of evidence, including other space agency's confirmation, but you ignore what you choose to.
Are you a flat earth space denier tard?

True Story

They never got past the Van Halen Band


[link to youtu.be (secure)]

What is an HB? Hoax Believer? The phrase makes no sense, how can one believe in a lack of belief of the NASA Narrative?

There are NASA story believers and skeptics, that's it. You are the believer here. If you have evidence of the missions then you'll have no need to label skeptics as you would some type of cult member, let your evidence for the landings stand on it's own.

Your casual blast off from the plaster moon model, catch up and docking makes a lovely story but that doesn't mean it is true or even likely. You appear to have no idea how difficult the simple orbit of a Mass-con. infested body such as the moon is, let along the guidance and precision required to dock. More suspicious is that all dockings worked 100% first time, every time, only took a few minutes, were rarely filmed and done with 1960s technology from craft with extremely limited visibility.

Not helping your case is that in general the CSM commanders were so unobservant/blind they even failed to see the stars while orbiting the dark side of the moon, I wouldn't trust any of them at a set of traffic lights let along a complex orbital docking procedure in poorly made tin and mylar cans 250,000 miles away.

So the docking at the moon: Cool story bro., but no one is buying it. Application of the slightest critical thinking causes the story to disintegrate under it's own hubris.

Ah I see, another attempt to shift the subject - this time to your flat earth theories when we were discussing the Apollo missions. Right after I

1) just warned against that,
and
2) discussed the orbit of the moon. Duh. Can you see how you missed that part of my post?

So lets leave your flat earth beliefs to a different thread and concentrate on you assertion that somehow it's my fault if I don't accept your manufactured, NASA sourced, inconsistent evidence shall we?

Lets hear your best piece of evidence for Apollo. Go ahead:

I liked the part where the Nasa guy explained it would be a problem to get outside the radiationbelt now because they "destroyed" the tech they had to do that in the past.

So they cant do anymore what they could do 50 years ago lol sounds legit.

There was a post here awhile back linking to a guy from nasa explaining why the radiationbelt would be a problem "now" when trying to go to mars.

Last Edited by Violetag on 02/07/2019 05:44 AM

Yes, the 'destroyed' 'tech' was some thin mylar and aluminium alloy. Ironically any heavy metal (which aluminium / aluminum is classed as for this purpose) has a nasty habit of creating showers of secondary radiation.

For this reason the Orion team are looking at hydrogen rich plastics instead because when radiation hits hydrogen there isn't much secondary - i.e. no neutrons. This will reduce the X-rays and neutron showers inside the crafts.

Additionally the Van Allen belt is just one (2 - 3) radiation speed-bump(s), the rest of space is also full of radiation from the sun, galaxy and cosmos. Some non solar radiation is shielded by the Sun's magnetic field (forming another speed-bump for later!) but enough still gets through to cook biological lifeforms. Then you get secondary radiation from the lunar surface itself, 2-3 days in open space is pretty damaging. There's even a NASA page about the perils of secondary radiation from the lunar surface.

NASA casually sums up the radiation exposure in Apollo to a 'few chest Xrays', forgetting of course that chest X-rays use film that gets 'fogged' by the X-ray radiation, turning blacks to clear areas away from bones etc. getting in the way. Also X-ray operators retreat to lead lined rooms for this procedure for a reason.
So even the X-ray lie fails because if I take all the 160 ASA Apollo film and put in inside an X-ray beam for a few chest X-rays I'd not get those perfect starless blacks that they get on every single roll for every single mission.

Yes, every single black on every single Apollo image proves the photo was faked and never even went near space.

Tnen there's the risk of solar flares, the time of the missions was a solar maxima and there actually was a huge solar flare between two trips, even if the rockets had worked it would have been solar flare roulette at best.

The list of problems goes on - I've really only scratched the surface here.

Last Edited by Drone#6 on 02/07/2019 06:11 AM

How did they film that?

MoS

it rose at the speed it should based on the thrust to weight ratio.

The ascent stage didn't return. The astronauts transferred into the CSM and the service module pushed them back.

but thanks again for proving that hoaxies know the least about the subject.

context. the recent video they were specifically talking about testing the electronics of the new spacecraft. How DARE they want to make sure those will work before sending humans through!!

The missions were broadcast live. So yes, they had wireless at the time.
Another hoaxie proving they know the least about the subject.

Gee, if only they had spent time practicing orbital rendezvous and docking beforehand. Oh wait, they did. The Gemini program consisted of lots of practice in rendezvous and docking. As for limited visibility, each spacecraft had RADAR to help with the rendezvous as well.

As for seeing stars, it depends on if they turned off the lights in the cabin and let their eyes adjust. Some did, some didn't. ALL saw star when they needed to for navigation purposes

Do you see any Saturn V rockets lying around waiting to be used? Or the facilities to launch them? Or the assembly lines to make them? No? Huh, well maybe we don't have the capability readily available then.

Thank you for mentioning Mars. The path around the Van Allen belts that Apollo used is suitable only for trips to the Moon. Interstellar trips can take a path with that angle so they have to go through the thicker parts of the belt.

They must have had some sweet batteries to power those amazing environmental control systems.

Ray-O-Vac

Path around?

the Apollo spacecraft also had polyethylene as part of its insulation for that purpose.


Quantify it. Prove it was too much for the short time they went. Bet you can't.


X-ray operators would be exposed to far more than a "few" even in a week if they didn't retreat. Failed analogy from you.


So prove the amount of x-rays the film was exposed to should have been too much.


And there were none directed at Earth DURING a mission.

Yes, around. They are belts, not spheres.

Laughable

"I'm not sure we went far enough out to encounter the Van Allen radiation, maybe we did?"


[link to youtu.be (secure)]

They need to tie a cable to the moon and then zipline back and forth if they want my vote.

Outer space is fake and gay.

Pretty simple observation....who the FK is on the Moon surface filming and taking pictures while the astronauts fly away...did they leave someone up there?

Or maybe it was ET? He wanted to go home too...LOLOLOL

And again a hoaxie proves they know the least about the subject.

Remote controlled camera run by Ed Fendell in Houston. the camera was controlled by him for each of the EVAs.

Is that the footage where they edited his answers from his Gemini missions in to make it look like he was answering about Apollo?

Even if not, why should he remember what is a pretty uneventful part of the trip? They were on a preplanned trajectory taking them around the thickest parts of the belts. they were bobbing and weaving Buck Rodgers style around pockets of radiation.

Delay in radio communications by 2 seconds but this guy could instantly control the camera to pan up and follow?

Care to provide here the technology that was around then to make that possible?

No dust, yet the video shows an expanding cloud of dust. Lol. Your way out of your element bud

Fun thread!

Last Edited by Eilonwy on 02/07/2019 09:23 AM

I like how they read the question and the one guy desperately waits for the other guy to answer, as he has no idea what to say.

Paid liars.

And that's how babies are made.