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

The previous AC post is mine, GLP logged me out while I was typing LOL:



I should hope you did find some nice anecdotes and of course the establishment favourite, good old Wikipedia to back the official story up!

50 years of top quality american state sponsored propaganda SHOULD be easy to find, if it wasn't I'd expect quite a few people would be fired.

What did you expect? It proves nothing, it's hearsay.

Today I picked up Radio Saturn on my radio ham antenna at 12.345Mhz exactly, they were on the LSB SSB, the whole family were enjoying the syncopating beats that won 'Best Of Outer Planets' award of 106782 galactic time. I got my daughter to fine-tune the dial as she has perfect pitch.

Now prove me wrong, oh and thanks, have a nice day!
In the meantime perhaps you have a single piece of EVIDENCE or PROOF that they went to the moon you'd like to share?

Last Edited by Drone#6 on 02/08/2019 12:39 PM

What you have an issue with the 'moon' rocks?

You stated the amateurs did not possess equipment that they did, nor had capabilities that they had. My links prove you wrong. However, on we go...



You beg an interesting question: what evidence could be provided in this medium that you would *accept?*

The veracity of the lunar samples won't do it.
The first hand accounts of people who followed the missions on radio won't do it.
The word of the astronauts won't do it.
The thousands who worked on the project won't do it.
The word of America's enemies at the time won't do it.
The physicists won't do it.

Well, what will?

What evidence would allow *you* to tacitly conclude that the Apollo missions happened, pretty much as reported? Any you can even *imagine?*

If the answer is no, then there's nothing left to discuss. There is no rational way to change your mind about the veracity of Apollo -- your rejection is an irrational, religious belief, and nothing more. That's fine, as far as it goes.

If the answer is yes, explain what evidence will do it! And please be as precise and specific as possible.

And thank you for the well wishes!

Last Edited by 74444 on 02/08/2019 04:23 PM

No chain of evidence, invalid.


They may or may not be real, hearing something on a radio doesn't prove anything beyond some radio transmitter somewhere. I could attach a radio transmitter to a weather balloon and the signal would come from 'space'.


I believe them when they cried in the press conference, the message was clear: they didn't go.


Four hundred thousand in all, why would they know anything? They all work on their parts, I didn't notice 400,000 people climbing into the rocket - did you?


The space administrations were rivals, not enemies. You think the Soviets didn't lie about Gagarin? They knew the Van Allen belts made the 'space race' a fiction, they knew the US was already losing the Vietnam war of aggression, so they took the Grain Shipment deal and saved money and face.


What physicists? Stephen Hawking? Smolin? Einstein? What evidence did they have access to that we don't?


What evidence would allow *you* to prove that the Apollo missions happened, pretty much as reported? If the answer is none, then there's nothing left to discuss.


Your faith is an irrational, religious belief, and nothing more. That's fine, as far as it goes, but leaves the Apollo missions as UNPROVEN.

The reason NASA can't display their trajectory course and radar tracking there and back is because the records are misplaced, like old newspapers?

so what are the objects sitting on the surface of the Moon where the 6 landings purportedly happened? ...seen by foreign countries satellites?

and what documentation do you have concerning the VAB, and why it seems to be instant death to you? In detail please.

We've been through this before: there is NO independent confirmation. You yourself have proven this by failing to provide any images, even fake ones.

There's no evidence of ANY objects on the moon from Apollo, apart from NASA's LRO CGI of the tracks and impossible flags.

This has also been dealt with using NASA's OWN data. NASA claims that the radiation exposure was equivalent to a few 'chest X-rays'.

A single 'chest X-ray' fogs film, destroying the deep blacks. But ALL of the Apollo images have PERFECT blacks.

Therefore according to NASA they faked all the images. This doesn't really help you and the case for the harmless VAB, it merely reinforces the problem of NASA faking the images.

It doesn't even matter about the geometrically impossible NASA claim that they flew 'around' the belt. NASA claims the radiation, but their own film evidence is of NO radiation.

prove the images are fake/CGI...your claim, your burden of proof...present your evidence...

Yes of course, here is one proof:

NASA claims that the radiation exposure was equivalent to a few 'chest X-rays'.

A single 'chest X-ray' fogs film, destroying the deep blacks. But ALL of the Apollo images have PERFECT blacks.

Therefore according to NASA they faked all the images. QED!

Yeah see what they did was pack a TV station inside the camera.

Why would those foreign countries publicly oppose the United States? Are they trying to start a war? Are they trying to lose their biggest customer of their exports?

Whether you believe we got bamboozled, or it really happened, it is time to move on to other things.

You handwave that so easily, yet proceed to make all kinds of assertions yourself. What makes yours valid, and mine invalid? And as for the chain of evidence of the lunar samples, be specific: where is the break in the chain? Imagine my surprise when you ignore this question.



Here is exactly the kind of assertion you decry. You have no evidence of weather balloons employed to fool amateur hams and astronomers, yet you seem to think that merely the supposition invalidates what the hams experienced firsthand. It doesn't work that way. Next thing you'll be telling me is that 800 pounds of lunar samples were returned robotically, with no evidence to back that up.



Your interpretation of the astronauts behavior is, I daresay, unique. In the meantime, there were plenty of interviews with a whole range of emotions of the Apollo astronauts who were adamant that they, in fact, stood on the Moon.



But each of them worked, in their compartmentalized way, on a *part that worked.* I have seen all sorts of claims about how every part of Apollo was somehow flawed, yet when the individual parts are examined, they *work.* Put them all together, and the whole *works.* If is all works, they went to the Moon.



You, of course, have evidence supporting his claim. Oh, wait: no chain of evidence, invalid. That was easy!



You misunderstand. The physics of Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the Space Shuttle, are all congruent with each other. You have direct building blocks from one to the next. The physics works on every step of the way.




You avoid the most important part of my post unanswered. What evidence COULD move Apollo into the PROVEN category *to you?* What evidence would allow *you* to accept that the Apollo missions happened, pretty much as reported? Is there any evidence you can imagine doing it at all? This is not a rhetorical question, and your evasion of said question is beneath you.

I looked and could only find it quoted as equal to an x-ray but even if your citationless statement is correct, was this film just kicking around the cabin the whole time or stored in other containers that would have provided more shielding?



Nobody has claimed they bypassed the belts entirely. They took an inclined trajectory that took them around the thicker center parts avoiding the most intense regions. Not impossible. and not misplaced like DGN likes to lie about.






Last Edited by LHP598 on 02/08/2019 07:23 PM

This is what, NASA's 40 year old Apollo radar tracking, or a color pencil drawing, like evolutionist drawing little creatures mutating upwards into bigger ones, with no intelligent rewrite of the DNA assembly blueprints?

I don't think I was talking to you.
But it is a computer animation based on the planned trajectory and RADAR tracking. Not that I'd expect you to understand that.

Back in the '70s I went to the Huntsville space center and they had a scale model of the LEM blasting off from the moon. There was a wire from the ceiling to model of the moon that it rode on, and it was powered by a model rocket motor. It looked exactely like the film of the "real" thing.

Kind of like the 'moon' rocks?

The ones that show signs of formation in low gravity, that have microscopic zap pits from millions of years of cosmic rays, that have never been in contact with liquid water, and were examined by thousands of geologists around the world?

Or the rock that ended up in an art museum after a former prime minister's estate ASSUMED it was a Moon rock that has no evidence NASA was ever involved?

Or was all that too complicated for you to follow?

Last Edited by LHP598 on 02/08/2019 08:53 PM

It was too complicated. Somehow thinking that a single mis-identification thus means ALL lunar sample are hoaxes is beyond silly -- yet the hoaxies trot it out all the time.

Maybe the astroNuts recovered them after they were blown out by the landing blast craters?

you mean the craters that shouldn't be there anyway? The LLTV, helicopters and harriers all land vertically with more thrust and none of them dig craters. The descent engine was throttled down for landing and its thrust would be spread out over a large engine bell and then spread out more in the vacuum. We DO see though that some loose dust was blown away under the engines.

[link to www.clavius.org]

Probably got too complicated for you again, right?

Now watch, as DGN gish-gallops to another point...

Exactly. but he'll come back to this in a few days as if nothing ever happened.

No blast crater, no problem in Hollywood, as long as no one asks inconvenient questions.

Questions like "Why does the math work?"

[link to pseudoastro.wordpress.com (secure)]

No questions like how did they forget to rake out the craters on all seven filming s?

Ah, Gish Galloping again, I see. What, exactly, is your problem with the craters, now? Why did the craters need 'raking' in your unique worldview?

And are you going to address your previous hoaxie claims being blown to pieces earlier, or can we expect to see you repeat those same debunked claims again in the near future?