It was Impossible to Fake the Moon Landing on video in 1969

they did NOT need several suits on Earth.
They had one suit for practice on Earth. the one for training. they are definitely not taking that one. The others are designated as flight and backup with the secondary crew not having a backup. If the secondary crew has to take over, they are not going to have that extra suit. The suits are many layers with the pressure layer being multiple layers down. If part of the outer layers is damaged the suit is still usable. If the suit is damaged too much then they just don't do another EVA. Every extra item they bring is more weight to lift into space. Again, I doubt they took more than one suit each.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 04/14/2019 06:28 PM

the helmet has an internal (pressure) and external (with the visors) part. If the external part is damaged they don't lose pressure and they cancel an EVA. The suits weren't as fragile as you think.

If you lived back then, you'd understand the total commitment and work ethic (lack of materialism, strong family units were the norm, before "open borders etc)... so this could be achieved by this character trait of the bulk of the population then. Keep in mind this was about 50 years after men first flew (Wright brothers, Kitty Hawk, NC).

Face it, they faked it like they fake everything else.

When I was at Nellis AFB in 1977 I saw a complete mock up of the lunar surface with LEM. Would have been easy enough to fake a moon landing there.

MAN HAS NEVER EVER LEFT LOW EARTH ORBIT, EVER!!
Don't be a stupe'

You space-tards just can't let go of your childhood fantasies.

Imagination is required to believe in space travel because it does not exist

It would be impossible to fake the physics of how the dust behaved in the wake of the lunar rover on a "set" in the Nevada desert. The dust fell quickly back to the moon surface. In Nevada, it would have floated in the atmosphere for many minutes before falling back to Earth.

Look at :45-:50 and you can clearly see this...

That’s sand. Case closed

Could a space-tard please explain why the clothing technology that prevented the astronauts from being alternately burnt or frozen alive is not being used on the earth where firefighters and people wearing hard hats and helmets are dying from injuries every day.

Not to mention people being frozen alive on Everest.

It says on this website,

The spacesuits worn by the Apollo astronauts could withstand the rigors of a lunar mission such as 270-degree temperature swings,


And by the way, the suits clearly were not as tough as you like to point out, they are disintegrating in earth's environment but we are to beleive they could withstand the extreme cold and heat of the moon? And even protect the astronauts from small meteorites?



They were built to protect the fragile bodies of humans in outer space. Temperatures on the moon swing from 120 degrees Celsius (248 degrees Fahrenheit) by day to minus 150 degrees Celsius (minus 238 degrees Fahrenheit) by night. The spacesuits were even intended to withstand strikes by minuscule meteorites.


If the technology existed in the 60's to withstand heat, cold and damage by meteorite, why is that technology not being used in this day and age?

Something does not add up here, it says the suits are corroding because they cannot withstand the earth's climate although they were designed to withstand extreme temperature and protect the astronaut's fragile bodies.

At the end of the article it says

"The Mona Lisa will still be around in 500 years. The Apollo suits won't."

It just does not add up.

Something seriously up with that.



[link to www.spiegel.de (secure)]

Your momma didn't teach you the magic word?


Actually it is, what do you think those heat-reflecting blankets and suits are made off?
(They even call them space blankets.)

On Earth you don't have the advantage of being able to use vacuum as an insulator, though.
And on the Moon you don't have to worry about falling objects.

Anyhoo, what makes you think that walking on the Moon is anything like walking into a burning building or being exposed to extreme windchill factors?


Why don't you just read the article?

The environment in a Smithsonian is very different from that of the surface of the Moon.

The article said the suits were designed to withstand being hit by small meteorites. Explain that. If you can.

By the way, you all pretend to be so knowledgeable about space and moon landing details but noone has come forward to state exactly how many space suits and helmets were on board. It's no use surmising half the time and making bold claims the rest of the time. It shows a lack of consistency.

Actually, it's a proven fact that the footage they aired was fake simply because at the time they had HD 1080p cameras available... which they weren't allowed to show off...

VHS and CD had to come first lol... so the civilian population slowly got introduced to HD tech... which just goes to show you that for the longest time the ELITE had HD 1080p porn lol before we did, of course!

How cruel!


They did in fact go to the Moon though... that's 100% real, but the bullshit they feed us IS NOT.

Micrometeorites are rather different from falling blocks of concrete.
Twenty layers of armour won't do much to protect you from getting crushed.

Thinking by analogy can get you non-realistic results.


That's because nobody cares to do your homework for you.

If you think it is relevant to the question of historicity than YOU will have to show that relevance and YOU will have to provide the data.

So far you have just been speculating in a knowledge vacuum.
That won't get you very far.

In sane-peoples-land the historicity of the Manned Moon Landings is considered proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
This is supported by vast amounts of evidence.

The only way to put a dent in that is by proving that evidence was faked.
And the only way to prove fakery is by proving fakery.

In 50 years no hoaxie has even come close.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 04/17/2019 03:25 AM

Beyond any reasonable doubt. Now that's a laugh

Only if you're an ignorant misled idiot.

But since you're a hoaxie...

Just like the U.S. submarine that just happened to come upon George H.W. Bush floating in the Pacific Ocean after his aircraft was “shot down”.

Much like John F. Kennedy, George H.W. Bush’s father had big plans for his son, and understood the power of heroic legend as the foundation from which to launch a presidential campaign.

With all due respect, I may be the ignorant misled idiot here but not one of you space experts can tell me how many space suits and helmets were on board. Not one. You all pretend to know it all but an important detail like that seems to elude you all.

I have searched high and low, there is no informatoin on this subject. I think it's pretty important. If NASA decide not to release this informatoin, it doesnt help me to stop being ignorant, does it, especially when the so called experts on glp tell me, they assume it was one suit.

It's either one, nine or another number. Why is it not recorded anywhere in precise detail? you shouldnt have to assume these things, it's hardly rocket science, (no pun intended).

I love the way you experts make wild assumptions when it suits you.

glp university rocks. LOL

Whats the deal with this "Hoaxie" thing? is that what people are being called for asking questions about the official NASA story?

Have the pseudo-know-it-all-cause-i learned it school types actually studied the question from both sides?

if not perhaps consider reading:
We never went to the moon - Bill Kaysing
Moongate
Nasa Mooned America - Ralph rene
(lots of interviews on youtube if ur to lazy some links in this thread)

or



for an analysis of the photography,
and A funny thing happened on the way to the moon has some info too.

Their are so many arguments, for example:

where was the evidence of 1/6th Gravity?

how did the flimsy antennae on the module not burn up on re-entry?

why do the feet of the lander look spotless? no dust, and no disturbance of the dust under the lander?

Why does it look like the Rovers tracks just stop and start out of no-where?

how do footprints form when their is no moisture in the dust?

how did the astronots take such amazing photos with gauntlets on, with no view finder etc. Also why do many pictures look like they were taken from viewpoints that were impossible?

why didnt the film fog?

and on and on and on...

I did communications timing during the 1969 supposed moon trip, I knew in a few minutes that it was being faked.
Space cartoons do not prove fake space or Earth globe theory, as an adult you should know that.

nasa fan boys, globers on a mission (pun)

Nobody but you seems to care.


Nobody knows it all.
But knowing more than a hoaxie is fucking easy.


Why is it important?


The part before the comma doesn't proof the part after it.

It only proves that you tried to do something and failed.


You have yet to prove this premisse.




Hoaxies don't just JAQ off, they assert a non-evidence based believe.
Hoaxism is pretty much like a religious cult.


Yes.
Clearly you haven't.


You clearly are new at this.
NO ONE OF THESE HOAX-MONGERS HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE A SINGLE RELEVANT EVIDENTIARY CLAIM. EVER.
They are fantasists and liars.


Are you fucking new on the internet?
These are all Points Refuted A Thousand Times.

More importantly questions don't prove anything.
What we need from the accusers is ANSWERS.
Answers to the question of the how, the what, and the who.
And above all the question of WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE.

You not knowing or understanding something only proves something about you, and has no bearing what-so-ever on the historicity of Apollo.




Either you did it wrong or you are lying.

Communications lag has actually successfully been used by schoolkids to measure the distance to the Moon.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 04/17/2019 03:27 AM

Mr Halcyon Dayz, I'll tell you why I am interested in the suits, I do some sewing. I love fabrics, I discover new fabrics all the time and I am fascinated by the way fabric works. For example, modern technology has produced a way of making many fabrics non-fraying so it's easier to work with, to wear, it lasts longer etc. Some fabrics now stretch and do not need ironing.....Honestly I could go on all day about fabrics, I love to discover how it works etc.

As I am now interested in learning about the moon landings, it's only natural that the first thing that appeals to me is the fabric technology and the helmets too, although that might be a bit technical, the fabrics are not too technical. I want to know a hell of a lot more and you space retards think you know it all but cannot find out any information that would be of any interest to me.

The fact is that without good space suits, the astronauts would have died within seconds. I cant in fact understand why the vacuum didnt squash them as soon as they got out of the space rocket as I have seen what vacuum does to fabrics when the air is removed. I would love to know more details of how incredible these suits were that could withstand that kind of pressure and keep the men safe.

I was way too young to understand the moon landings when they occurred but beleive me, I want to know more, especially after seeing images of the lunar lander. I cant beleive how it could possibly have withstood the harsh vacuum and moon rocks.

And by the way, whoever said the meteorites would not be a major problem may not be aware of how moon craters are formed.

Lunar Craters. Craters on the Moon are caused by asteroids and meteorites colliding with the lunar surface. The Moon's surface is covered with thousands of craters.

So there you go. Space experts need to be a little bit consistent if you want to convince us the moon landings took place and that the suits were able to withstand the impact of meteorites, as it said on the article above.

Believe me, I am on your side. It's just that you keep flip flopping on important issues. I want to beleive the moon landings took place. It's just that the evidence is not looking all that good and you space experts have a very short fuse.

This is the effect that vacuum has on fabric when the air is removed

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]



The space suits would have to be incredible to withstand the pressure of being in a vacuum. I have yet to see any fabric that could do that. Please explain to us what type of fabric was used.

Thread: NASA Moon Landing Hoax 100% Proof

So I guess the Russian, Chinese, Indian, and EU satellite photos are also fake that show the lunar rover with tracks. They also show the blast sites of the lunar modules.

You deniers are just a bunch of ignorant trolls. Grow up and educate yourselves. You do understand that there were two speeches the president had to read. They truly didn’t think they would be able to land or takeoff and prepared for the worst.

Thankfully they succeeded and the president read the gratitude speech that the world heard.

Sets were designed for them to practice climbing in and out of the lander. On the moon they were wired to the lander in case they sank in the moon’s surface climbing down the ladder.

I could go on but your tiny brains may explode from the truth.

You are a dumb.

There are many theoretical nonsense being portrayed as science. The standard model, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity, the big bang theory, black hole, photon, time travel, dark matter, simulation.

Maxwell was wrong. there is no transverse wave/em wave moving at light speed in space, due to there is no force carrier in space.

Computer simulation can only produce digital signals, the real world is based on matter and energy.

Time is not a place, time has no location. Where is past or future? How to travel to nowhere?

Simple facts, can you see it?

NASA faked moon landing, some shadows are right under the object, means they made the video at noontime, which is not morning time as they said/should.

NASA, China, Japan all fake news about solar sails work in space, photons able to transfer momentum to solar sail to accelerate spaceship.

They lied right in front your eyes.

If light/photon has momentum, why navy laser weapon has no kinetic impact? Why does light mill not moving in a hard vacuum?

All space missions are fake, since they faked the time delay for space radio transmission.

Light/em wave passes over vacuum space at an infinite speed, moves within mediums at light speed.

All scientists think light speed is 3 x 10^8 m/s in the vacuum space, they are all wrong.

If light speed is limited in vacuum space, all stars and galaxies we see are from the past, how can scientists map the universe and measure the total mass?

It is all lies.

There is no solar wind. What's its mechanism? Why protons and electrons on the way to earth do not attract each other and form into hydrogen atoms? Why does gravity not pulling them back into the Sun?

There is no Van Allen Belts. What's its mechanism? The Sun's energy/radiation/light strength decays at 1/R^2, the only way to find stronger radiation is to get closer to the Sun. Near around earth, radiation strength is the same, within the atmosphere, it decreases. So between earth and the moon, the radiation strength is about the same, less within our atmosphere.

EM drive? powered by quantum vacuum virtual plasma. it is pseudoscience. quantum anything is imaginary.

LIGO detected gravity wave from 1.3 billion years ago? You wave hand will produce more detectable gravity wave than far away stars explode. Why can't LIGO detect CME or earthquake?

Gravity speed is infinite, gravity has to be instantaneous, otherwise, no planets can stay in orbit.

Voyager is fake, escape velocity is a lie, gravity is decelerating it at all the times, how can it escape from the solar system? Gravity holds all planets in orbit, unless you have unlimited rocket fuel, nothing can escape. Do you really think 23 watt radio transmitter can send pictures over billions of miles?

ISS is fake, AC systems cannot work in vacuum space, heat cannot radiate into space but matter.

If heat can radiate into space, the earth will be as hot as the sun, the whole universe will be at the same temperature, thermal equilibrium.

Einstein was wrong about time dilation.

Put same atomic clocks in the sun, earth, mars, flying air plan, for 1 day.

Each clock will have a different reading.

Which time is dilated? which clock has correct time?

Time dilation is a misinterpretation of timer's moving rate/reading affected by gravity/acceleration/force upon it.

Time is not a thing, time has no location, cannot be touched, what is dilating what? How?

All things happening is at now, all existence is at now, time is forever ongoing now, all past became now, all future will become now.

What is space? Void, emptiness, nothingness, therefore, no property, no boundary, anything can fit in it.

How can gravity curve space? What is curving? Gravity is attraction force between matters/masses, there is no matter in space that can be curved.

How can gravity slow down light, so light cannot escape from big star so it becomes a black hole? If gravity can slow down light, why sunlight and flashlight have the same speed?

They took a picture of stars behind of the sun at that solar eclipse, to proved gravity bends light path?

It is another misinterpretation, hot plasma on the sun deflected star lights. our atmosphere deflects star lights the same principle.

The most famous equation e=mcc is a math trick, not fact.

Mass is condensed charged particles. energy is emf matter carried. totally different, cannot equivalent.

A 1 kg gold bar at rest has no energy but thermal energy, for it to carry 1kgcc energy, it must move at 1.414 c speed. how fast can we move a bullet?

Nuclear energy? 1 kg best fuel, how many % of it can produce heat?

The most famous experiment double slit is a misinterpretation, all waves are within a medium/matter waves, there is no light/wave in space.

Light is not wave nor particle, but electron's vibration force. try double slit experiment in a vacuum chamber, wave property will disappear.

The fabric of space-time? Ripples of gravity wave? Distortion?

What is the compound of the fabric or ripples? What is distorting what? What is the mechanism?

Why protons in an atom stick together but electron and proton don't stick together? Are protons gays?

Why did all scientists fall for such nonsense and made it mainstream?

Science today is religion.

I see you copied and pasted from some wacko flat earth site.

You just ramble incoherent information hoping someone will believe your twisted lies. Grow up and think about moving out of you granny’s basement.