Did nasa really send astronauts to the moon?

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno I know more than you when it comes to this, unless you can tell me otherwise? Can you?

Presumption is the root of all evil my friend. Never presume.

but I'm not hearing much sense I'm afraid?



What's that about presumption cap, claiming to know more than this guy before asking.
Captain cookie dear pal your not making sense at all to any of us..
edit on 28-8-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 

So you're claiming to be a test pilot. Prove it.

Also, I would like to see your credentials for your expertise in spaceflight.

And lunar ops, if you have them.


John Lear, is that you?
edit on 8/28/2012 by aaaiii because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by aaaiii
 





So you're claiming to be a test pilot. Prove it. Also, I would like to see your credentials for your expertise in spaceflight. And lunar ops, if you have them.


Don't be so silly. Now I know you are and I know you know you are.

I have held a commercial pilots licence for years. You don't get a special "TEST PILOTS" licence, you just have a stamp in your log book detailing the aircraft you are allowed to fly and under what circumstances. If for commercial aviation (not military) you get a special dispensation for certain flight activities granted to you from the flight authority (CASA) in this case.

I have spent many year writing as a Contract Technical Writer / Test Pilot for many companies such as Ministry of Defence (UK), NATO, SAAB Aerospace, ThyssenKrupp, Bombardier, McAlpine Helicopters, BAe, Boeing, Allan Mann Helicopters. I know a thing or two about aircraft.

I have never stated I know everything about Lunar Ops as you put it. But I am aware of nearly all the testing that took place prior to the actual mission - It was an embarrassment. Perhaps you might like to have a look at the time line on those particular activities/experiments? Should raise a smile if nothing else.

I'm not going to publicly post my ARN but I can tell you it's a 6 digit number that relates to my current Commercial pilots licence here in Australia.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
SPACEFLIGHT credentials?

This would be any proof that you've flown something in the vacuum of space and actually know what you're talking about when it comes to flying "in space".
edit on 8/28/2012 by aaaiii because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by aaaiii
 


Goodbye.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


Cookie do you actually have anything to bring to the table regarding man not landing on
the moon?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Well, glad I'm never disappointed. This thread, like all other threads of this content matter, has died in an endless banter of irrelevant posts, which unfortunately, always kills the enthusiasm of the OP. It doesn't take long for a controversial thread like this one to be hijacked. Sorry krs678, another one bites the dust.

krs678, as you have found out, the issue of the lunar landings is a highly emotionally charged topic. Fortunately for the rest of us, ATS has a wealth of threads on the moon landings with substantial information from a lot of great sources.

Good luck!



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
It deserved to die.

I stab it again.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


I second that.

NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T, NO I DO, NO YOU DON'T,



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   


SPACEFLIGHT credentials? This would be any proof that you've flown something in the vacuum of space and actually know what you're talking about when it comes to flying "in space"




Cookie do you actually have anything to bring to the table regarding man not landing on the moon?

Cookies response was


goodbye.


That ladies and gentleman is how the cookie crumbles.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by aaaiii
 





This would be any proof that you've flown something in the vacuum of space and actually know what you're talking about when it comes to flying "in space".


Nice tack on job there.........oh, you got me, good job, you win!

by the way, you don't actually "fly" in space.

First, rockets dont fly.
Birds fly because their wings give them "lift". Aircraft fly because wings provide "lift".

"Lift" is required to counteract gravity and lift the bird or aircraft upwards, or at least prevent it from falling. The wings operate according to fluid dynamics (yes, air is characterized as a fluid in this case).

Rockets are propelled by rocket engines. The rocket engine provide the "lift" to counteract gravity according to forces different than wings. Therefore, I claim rockets dont "fly".

If there was no gravity things would "float". Once a rocket is in space one could argue that it is "floating" in space. However, gravity exists everywhere and to keep a rocket from "falling" towards an object like earth, it needs to move away from earth.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 

My "tack on" was to clarify. I know all about the birds, and the bees (bumble).

People in this thread doubt we went to the moon for some strange reason. I'm trying to establish exactly what makes you an expert in this area, which is more or less what you're asserting.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 





That ladies and gentleman is how the cookie crumbles.


Oh the rapturous applause, crying children and housewives throwing you flowers! You audience has signaled you are the best ever!
Very funny.

However, after the lack of response from your good self regarding what you bring to the table I hardly think it's worth discussing anything further with you. Especially as you seen intent on making jokes, ascertaining whether I am worthy of a chat with you, pawing my credentials, experience and qualifications...............all without actually giving anything back?

So Denver22 what can you tell me about the whole deal then? What do you know, come on I'm all ears, where is your personal proof? Or is it another case of "saw it on T.V, read it in a magazine, believe everything anyone tells me".

That is why I said "Goodbye".

I have been more than open with you.




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

So Denver22 what can you tell me about the whole deal then? What do you know, come on I'm all ears, where is your personal proof? Or is it another case of "saw it on T.V, read it in a magazine, believe everything anyone tells me".

I have been more than open with you.




Give this a try at home then get back to me.Try to drop a hammer and a feather then tell
me what happens cap?
edit on 28-8-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Here is NASA's latest try.

Seems they still can't get it right. But of course, everything just came together like a dream in the 1960's with that wonderful technology they had back then................all the way to the Moon!!! Wooosh!

Enjoy:









and this was NASA's latest try.......Hmmmmm
edit on 28-8-2012 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-8-2012 by CaptainBeno because: vid probs



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
People who think we never landed on the moon are some of the worst people to debate with, they are just as bad as creationists. No matter the amount of proof and evidence you provide "You're wrong" Don't debate with them it's a complete waste of time.

You could go back and forth for years about this and still never get anywhere.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Here is NASA's latest try.

Seems they still can't get it right. But of course, everything just came together like a dream in the 1960's with that wonderful technology they had back then................all the way to the Moon!!! Wooosh!

Enjoy:


Please try to at least do some proper research cookie pal.


Nasa spokeswoman Lisa Malone said it appears that the methane-and-liquid oxygen-powered lander is a total loss. Nobody was hurt in the unmanned experiment and the flames were put out, she said. In a statement, Nasa said it was probably more a mechanical failure than a control issue. Morpheus is a prototype for a cheap, environmentally friendly planetary lander. Thursday was the first time it had been tested untethered in a free flight. It had performed about 20 flights at Johnson Space Centre in Houston, where it was designed and made, but it was always tethered to a crane, Nasa said. The testing moved from Texas to Florida last week and Morpheus had a successful tether test on Friday. Nasa had planned to run tests for three months. The plan was for flights over a specially created field designed to mimic the surface of the moon, with boulders, rocks, slopes and craters. The lander was built mostly with low-cost, off-the-shelf materials. It was an attempt to use cheaper, more readily available and environmentally friendly rocket fuel. The space agency was considering it as a potential lander for places like the moon or an asteroid, possibly carrying a human-like robot or small rover. Nasa promoted Morpheus as a "green" project because methane is more environmentally friendly than the toxic rocket fuels it uses. Methane, which is the main component of natural gas, is also cheaper and could even be made from ice on the moon or Mars. Morpheus was early in the Nasa experimental "test bed" process and the space agency had not committed to using the lander in any specific flight.




It was designed to be cheaper with low cost off the shelf materials and different fuel.
I see that you do not know the difference between fuel types.

You see if you actually did the research in the first place you would known the difference
edit on 28-8-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


Here's a great video for your viewing pleasure.




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


Tut Tut Tut, removing edit text to make it look like you haven't added/edited anything multiple times



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by krs678
 


I dont know enough about how possible it is to survive the radiation, but i also find it hard to understaind how its so easy.
The thing that always got me was a video i seen awhile back, sorry for no link as it seems the version i saved as a favorite on yt has been deleted. Maybe someone here knows were it can be found now. untill than ill keep looking and report back. Anyway, in this video the nasa crew is filming the earth out the window on the way to the moon. They repeatedly say the camera is against the window and the blackness around the tiny earth is black of outterspace. At some point someone accedentaly turns on the light ans we can clearly see the camera is far from the window and the earth takes up the entire opening. The black was the walls of the ship in the dark and its ovious the earth is much bigger and closer than they claim.
I just never understood why, if they went and really did get that far, why tell such a clear lie.
If someone can find that please post it. Im still looking.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join