Did NASA just admit they never put Man on The Moon? [Video]

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

So, you accept the Russian "glass ceiling" as accurate, but not that Gemini shattered it. So Russia doesn't lie, but the US does.

Gemini 11 Apogee 1368 km.

So much for your "glass ceiling".

a reply to: Zaphod58
Zaphod 58, Apollo was zinging along until they experienced a major malfunction in the Apollo 13 mission. Then their script went South. I was present at Hickam AFB for the Press conference, when Pres. Nixon welcomed them back. My gripe is that looking through a port hole at the Sun, let them navigate to within a mile of their chief recovery ship, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The odds against this are astronomical. But if these poster boys were a second crew, and were dropped off by a bomber, then it would be feasible to use the capsule as a WWII "Para-bomb".

a reply to: carpooler

They were using guidance from the ground, inertial systems, and sun shots. There was a lot more than "looking at the sun" involved.

originally posted by: cheery1
a reply to: choos
ohhh you poor souless.... choo
May I suggest.. you retrace your steps to the start of this thread to refresh your memory..

what about the start of the thread??

are you saying the rockets was not capable of getting to the moon?

if you are suggesting the rockets was not able to protect man from the VAB radiation, i suppose you have proof of this instead of hearsay?? perhaps hard maths?

should i link to you a THIRD party's hard calculations of the radiation levels apollo 11 would have received??

a reply to: choos

are you saying the rockets was not capable of getting to the moon?

Are you now seeing or hearing things son..?

Then a further inane statement..

if you are suggesting the rockets was [were?] not able to protect man from the VAB radiation..

LOL... babble, babble, babble... Are you o.k son?
Cos you seem a little demented..
Tell you what..
1: if you can provide evidence of your two suppositions (of me) above..
2: can answer any questions I may have (can't be bothered looking) posed to you..

I will converse with you..
But at the moment you come across as the proverbial weasel chasing your tail around a mulberry bush.
In short.. sensible debate or no debate..
Comprehend.. Choo?

originally posted by: cheery1
LOL... babble, babble, babble... Are you o.k son?
Cos you seem a little demented..
Tell you what..
1: if you can provide evidence of your two suppositions (of me) above..
2: can answer any questions I may have (can't be bothered looking) posed to you..

I will converse with you..
But at the moment you come across as the proverbial weasel chasing your tail around a mulberry bush.
In short.. sensible debate or no debate..
Comprehend.. Choo?

i dont get it are you expecting me to read your mind?? perhaps even stalk you??

you were implying they were conning people for their money.. how and what you havent even said yet, so i guessed you were implying they were taking the money instead of building infrastructure to support the apollo program and building genuine rockets designed to get man to the moon..

then you SAY to retrace MY steps to the start of the thread, which is hoax believers thinking the VAB is/was impossible to get past.. but no, apparently that is not what you said..

unfortunately im not a mind reader which you seem to believe i am.. so instead of you giving everyone and myself snide remarks, why not actually be more clear with what you are saying?? not everyone is as smart as you, nor thinking exactly as you are..

its a simple question requiring a simple answer which you have refused to give, instead you have gone on a round about way of saying nothing, what exactly are they conning you of?? they offered rockets to get man on the moon and it was done so.. if this is a con then you are implying the rockets were not real..

a THIRD party has proven that the VAB IS TRAVERSIBLE already, more reason why this thread is already and belongs in the HOAX BIN.. so if you are going to say they are conning you with apollo then its probably fake rockets right?? unless you want to be more clear??

a reply to: choos
This is why I can't be bothered with you choo..

You make things up.. Like..

fake rockets right??

You're confused.. I Never said it choo.. it's all in your head.
No mind reader required..
And that's the reason I suggested you (retrace yr steps) refresh your memory..

Me thinks the leadership of this site is way too touchy about this particular subject. I fail to see why this thread is HOAXbinned...after 40 pages. The OP presented his interpretation of what was said in the video. By that logic, any alternate view of practically anything today should be considered a hoax.

Also...there is a question mark at the end of the title...meaning...the OP is asking for opinions.

Anyway...

edit:

correction...20 pages

a reply to: FoosM

Instead, humans have stayed within the constraints of the VABs like a fish constrained by its fishbowl.

Well put.. couldn't agree more!!

Yet so many millions of tax-payer dollars sucked outa the coffers..

For what..??

originally posted by: cheery1
You're confused.. I Never said it choo.. it's all in your head.
No mind reader required..
And that's the reason I suggested you (retrace yr steps) refresh your memory..

i realise you never said it.. but when you claim we were conned what else could you mean??

if the impossibility of man passing the VAB is the only reason hoax believers have of hoaxing the moon landings is just that, all they have, then i would like to see proof of such, i can provide calculations of someone using actual data obtained from the VAB to calculate dosage in the VAB, data that engineers and scientists use to make satellite that are required to work in/near the VAB..

but every "skeptic" ignores it even though they have no maths to back up their claims that man passing the VAB is impossible.. they take the words preached from hoax theorists.. so in effect they are believing in a hoax theory because people have managed to convince them to without any mathematical evidence of such..

its why i say, if its NOT the VAB for why we are conned then what else could it be??

the rockets were designed and built to do what they were supposed to do, the VAB has been shown to be of minor consequence when shielded (even by "thin" layers of aluminium).. even completely unshielded (completely naked) a human can follow the trajectory of Apollo 11 only suffering radiation sickness, not death (only considering particle radiation point of view), similar dose to what radiotherapy gets..

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
Me thinks the leadership of this site is way too touchy about this particular subject. I fail to see why this thread is HOAXbinned...after 40 pages. The OP presented his interpretation of what was said in the video. By that logic, any alternate view of practically anything today should be considered a hoax.

Also...there is a question mark at the end of the title...meaning...the OP is asking for opinions.

Anyway...

edit:

correction...20 pages

Its wont be the first time it happened to an Apollo Hoax thread.
Even though some really interesting information gets brought forth.

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
Me thinks the leadership of this site is way too touchy about this particular subject. I fail to see why this thread is HOAXbinned...after 40 pages. The OP presented his interpretation of what was said in the video. By that logic, any alternate view of practically anything today should be considered a hoax.

Also...there is a question mark at the end of the title...meaning...the OP is asking for opinions.

Anyway...

edit:

correction...20 pages

Its wont be the first time it happened to an Apollo Hoax thread.
Even though some really interesting information gets brought forth.

Problem is its never new information always the same arguments repackaged. I know me personally I showed VAB readings explained the amount of radiation astronauts were exposed to explained airline pilots actually get a higher exposure if they fly for 15 years commercially. Talked about increased cancer risks. Explained JAra White and his lack of math skills. Not to mention countless others.

Funny you think something here is new as for the sight they've seen these arguments since the sight started so it doesn't take them long anymore to decide if there is any validity to the claim. What you see as a brash decision is actually years of reviewing post after post.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

Is NASA backpedaling now that we're onto them? That article you are linking was written after this post was made on ATS, are they trying to clean up their previous mess now, or?

-MM

no.. it goes hand in hand with saying protecting the delicate electronics aboard the Orion is a challenge since they are much more sensitive to radiation than the Apollo computers..

these electronics need a guarantee of not failing when in an area of elevated radiation, these electronics are supporting life.

people have been saying this from the start, you just never thought of it.

originally posted to: choos
It is you that is not listening; in this thread I've asked here, here, here, here, and here what is so "magical" about the Orion spacecraft computers that requires it to have new "challenges" that "must be solved" before sending people through the Vann Allen Belts. The Orion's challenges should be compared with recent Moon missions - of which there are several. I highly doubt that the Orion Missions computer is so much more advanced than the 4M's launced this year (or any of the other six Moon missions launched in the last four years) that it is a "challenge" to shield the Orion spacecraft from radiation that the other Moon missions the last few years did not have to solve.

-MM

Yes, a very good question indeed..
it's a fact that apart from the dubious apollo hoax.. No man or woman has travelled beyond the bounds of LEO.
And from what I can gather they have no "concrete evidence" of Humans physically going to the moon anyway.

Movie shots & speculative sums (to me at least) are NOT PROOF.

So far according to Wiki.. "ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.[264] As of 2010 the cost is estimated to be $150 billion."

For what?? To bob around inner space like a satellite..!?
The moon is a satellite.. why not experiment from there..!!

a reply to: choos

Your calculations.. are just that son.. theoretical calculations.
As NASA wiped the telemetry of "their most important event in history" then apart from movie shots taken from a monitor which are NOT "solid" proof of anything..

What proof of MAN going to the moon do you have "choo"?

originally posted by: cheery1
a reply to: choos

Your calculations.. are just that son.. theoretical calculations.
As NASA wiped the telemetry of "their most important event in history" then apart from movie shots taken from a monitor which are NOT "solid" proof of anything..

What proof of MAN going to the moon do you have "choo"?

theoretical calculations that say it was perfectly safe for Apollo 11 to have traversed the VAB along the trajectory they took (of which can be found and plotted from the transcript)
calculations based on real data collected from the VAB..
these theoretical calculations support themselves which cannot be said for hoax theories since they rely on hearsay and a good imagination..

what proof have i got??
they built genuine rockets to get man to the moon (this should be enough proof but it isnt for some reason)
i have third party maths calculations that prove the VAB was not an issue for apollo 11's trajectory
i have photos
i have videos
i have videos demonstrating lunar gravity
i have 9 missions that have gone to the area of the moon with humans
i have video footage that shows the entire earth from cis-lunar space that shows natural weather phenomena that would have appeared on that particular day only
i have video footage of the entire earth from cis-lunar space that shows an accurate terminator line that is accurate to when the video was broadcast live on TV
i have video footage that shows the entire dynamic earth from cis-lunar space showing its rotation over a 6 min period
i have 40+ years of silence from hundreds of thousands of people involved
i have the 40+ years of silence from hundreds of new scientists that are added daily from the entire world
i have millions of enthusiasts that have been collecting and show-casing apollo information from around the world
i have transcripts with audio
i have several prominent hoax theorists that are still alive when they should have been 'silenced' yet allowed to profit from their 'theories'
the apollo flight journal website is full of information..
theres more that ive missed but cant remember everything..

so please, 'cheery', dont tell me all you have is missing telemetry to believe that man could NOT traverse the VAB.. missing telemetry is not proof man DID NOT land on the moon, it is evidence that man lost/misplaced/reused the telemtry tapes and thats all..

if you want to prove that it was impossible for man to land on the moon than you need to show everyone why and how.. if its the VAB that makes it impossible than show us how and why.. if its the rockets that made it impossible then show us how and why.. missing telemetry is NOT proof that landing men on the moon is/was impossible..

a reply to: choos

For the last time choo..

You didn't list ANY solid proof..
ROCKETS.. Not proof they left LEO (or had anyone in)
MATHS.. Not solid proof
T.V, VIDEO, PHOTO's.. Hollywoods got plenty too.
FOOTAGE OF THE EARTH.. = Sat's weather balloons.
NASA, LOCKHEED, M.I.C, etc.. make alot of money from it
SCIENTIST.. Not everyone need to know + secrecy laws?
ENTHUSIASTS.. can be conned same as anyone else..
WEBSITE WITH INFO.. Wow that must prove it then.. Duh.
So far.. Nothing Solid At All
This one is interesting though.. (u let'n something slip??)

i have several prominent hoax theorists that are still alive when they should have been 'silenced' yet allowed to profit from their 'theories'

LOL!!

The taped over telemetry would have proved they did NOT go..

Hence the "taping over" of..
NASA AND AMERICA'S GREATEST SPACE ACCOMPLISHMENT!!

Face it son.. people lie.

Look at the so called "Boston Bombing" look ma fake blood..
Look at most of the events that just happen to have drills at freakishly the same time..

I know "you can't" agree (for whatever reason) why?
I can only guess..

As I have said before we will have to agree to disagree..
Cos I'm not changing my mind.

if you want to prove blah, blah

I'm not in court & (so far) still entitled to my opinion..
I don't "Have To" do Jack..

originally posted by: cheery1

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

Is NASA backpedaling now that we're onto them? That article you are linking was written after this post was made on ATS, are they trying to clean up their previous mess now, or?

-MM

no.. it goes hand in hand with saying protecting the delicate electronics aboard the Orion is a challenge since they are much more sensitive to radiation than the Apollo computers..

these electronics need a guarantee of not failing when in an area of elevated radiation, these electronics are supporting life.

people have been saying this from the start, you just never thought of it.

originally posted to: choos
what is so "magical" about the Orion spacecraft computers that requires it to have new "challenges" that "must be solved" before sending people through the Vann Allen Belts. The Orion's challenges should be compared with recent Moon missions - of which there are several. I highly doubt that the Orion Missions computer is so much more advanced than the 4M's launced this year (or any of the other six Moon missions launched in the last four years) that it is a "challenge" to shield the Orion spacecraft from radiation that the other Moon missions the last few years did not have to solve.

-MM

Yes, a very good question indeed..

I posted this about two pages back. It was ignored.

Computer Function – Orion’s computer is the first of its kind to be flown in space. It can process 480 million instructions per second. That’s 25 times faster than the International Space Station’s computers, 400 times faster than the space shuttle’s computers and 4,000 times faster than Apollo’s. But to operate in space, it has to be able to handle extreme heat and cold, heavy radiation and the intense vibrations of launches, aborts and landings. And it has to operate through all of that without a single mistake. Just restarting the computer would take 15 seconds; and while that might sound lightning fast compared to your PC, you can cover a lot of ground in 15 seconds when you’re strapped to a rocket.

originally posted by: cheery1
a reply to: choos

For the last time choo..

You didn't list ANY solid proof..
ROCKETS.. Not proof they left LEO (or had anyone in)
MATHS.. Not solid proof
T.V, VIDEO, PHOTO's.. Hollywoods got plenty too.
FOOTAGE OF THE EARTH.. = Sat's weather balloons.
NASA, LOCKHEED, M.I.C, etc.. make alot of money from it
SCIENTIST.. Not everyone need to know + secrecy laws?
ENTHUSIASTS.. can be conned same as anyone else..
WEBSITE WITH INFO.. Wow that must prove it then.. Duh.
So far.. Nothing Solid At All
This one is interesting though.. (u let'n something slip??)

its not solid proof to you because you say so,
ROCKETS: were designed to get man to the moon, every engineer involved in its design and construction knows its purpose and what to design for.. (this is proof that it was very possible, regardless of whether you believe it did or not.. why build something designed to do a specified task and then fake the task?? you have the equipment to do it why not just do it?? its all been paid for already)
MATHS: is solid proof your hand waving cant deny that maths proves the VAB was safe following the apollo 11 trajectory, your hand waving saying its not proof is just plain denial.
TV VIDEO PHOTOS: yes hollywood does, but hollywood didnt build real genuine rockets, hollywood cant keep its mouth shut for 40 + years, hollywood didnt have the technology to fake all the video footage that was shown on live tv that apollo did.
FOOTAGE OF EARTH: weather balloons cannot image the ENTIRE GLOBE, simply not far/high enough.
NASA, LOCKHEED, M.I.C,: i dont get it, so organisations with alot of money means they must fake everything?? (if anything this is proof that it was possible to land men on the moon, or will you suggest Lockheed Martin has inept engineers??)
SCIENTISTS: do you think every scientist around the world is bound by NASA's secrecy laws??
ENTHUSIASTS: they can, but they collect alot and they view alot in DETAIL.
WEBSITES: isnt that all hoax believers have?? the difference here is the websites i use is filled with quality information and backed by respectable people.

so where is your evidence that it was impossible for man to traverse the VAB.

LOL!!

The taped over telemetry would have proved they did NOT go..

how exactly?? because you say so?? do you even know what was on the telemetry?

Hence the "taping over" of..
NASA AND AMERICA'S GREATEST SPACE ACCOMPLISHMENT!!

so just ignore the fact that the 'telemetry' was recorded in different forms in seperate sources??

Face it son.. people lie.

but hoax theorists dont??

I know "you can't" agree (for whatever reason) why?
I can only guess..

As I have said before we will have to agree to disagree..
Cos I'm not changing my mind.

sure can agree to disagree..

i cant agree because hoax theorists claim its impossible to traverse the VAB.. but show no calculations of such, im expected to believe them because they say so??..
why is it the calculations that i have shows it was possible to follow apollo 11 trajectory and man can pass the VAB?? even without shields while only getting radiation sickness, not death.

I'm not in court & (so far) still entitled to my opinion..
I don't "Have To" do Jack..

oh thats nice, you want ME to prove man landed on the moon.. but when it comes to me asking you to prove its impossible you dont have to do anything??

second time in this thread a hoax believer has this double standards..

originally posted by: Pauligirl
Computer Function – Orion’s computer is the first of its kind to be flown in space. It can process 480 million instructions per second. That’s 25 times faster than the International Space Station’s computers, 400 times faster than the space shuttle’s computers and 4,000 times faster than Apollo’s. But to operate in space, it has to be able to handle extreme heat and cold, heavy radiation and the intense vibrations of launches, aborts and landings. And it has to operate through all of that without a single mistake. Just restarting the computer would take 15 seconds; and while that might sound lightning fast compared to your PC, you can cover a lot of ground in 15 seconds when you’re strapped to a rocket.

Dear mam,

You seem to draw a imaginary connection between a computer's performance statistics and its need for shielding against space radiation, but it is just that; imaginary. Please post any scientific sources for such a purposed connection in this thread, please.

-MM