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

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Others already have done so. Several times. It didn't take.

Obviously not, perhaps they did not apply enough adhesive to make it stick?

-MM

apply your logic to normal day life.

if i was to build a bridge over a 500m high, 200m wide ravine and i based it on a wooden footbridge that other engineers has built successfully, would you drive a fully loaded 18-wheeler over it?

p.s. i havent done any test for my bridge, no stress calculations, all i know is that other people have built a bridge similar to mine that works.. so what could possibly go wrong right?

Apply YOUR logic to the official story,

We did no testing,

im going to stop you right there..

within the first few words of your post you are already wrong, you need to learn your history before i can be bothered reading the rest..

prove to me the mercury, gemini and all apollo missions prior to apollo 11 were not tests..

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
I honestly admitted that I'm no geologist and only referenced other peoples work, sourcing others work is done often as not all work has to be original for it to be valid, same rule applies within science texts etc. So, I don't know what you mean is "absolutely insane" about sourcing someone elses work.

-MM

Ed Nixon, the president's little brother, was a geologist. But Dick's little brother couldn't find a job in geology. So Ed Nixon joined Bellcomm, the main contractor for Apollo, and Ed hired a real geologist, Farouk El-Baz, to study Lunar Orbiter images and help select Apollo landing sites.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Others already have done so. Several times. It didn't take.

Obviously not, perhaps they did not apply enough adhesive to make it stick?

-MM

apply your logic to normal day life.

if i was to build a bridge over a 500m high, 200m wide ravine and i based it on a wooden footbridge that other engineers has built successfully, would you drive a fully loaded 18-wheeler over it?

p.s. i havent done any test for my bridge, no stress calculations, all i know is that other people have built a bridge similar to mine that works.. so what could possibly go wrong right?

Apply YOUR logic to the official story,

We did no testing,

im going to stop you right there..

within the first few words of your post you are already wrong, you need to learn your history before i can be bothered reading the rest..

prove to me the mercury, gemini and all apollo missions prior to apollo 11 were not tests..

The OP has not set out to prove that.

The ONLY people to get through the earth radiation belts are American space test pilots who were loyal to the Nixon administration. The Russians have never been beyond 475km and that is an historical FACT.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Others already have done so. Several times. It didn't take.

Obviously not, perhaps they did not apply enough adhesive to make it stick?

-MM

apply your logic to normal day life.

if i was to build a bridge over a 500m high, 200m wide ravine and i based it on a wooden footbridge that other engineers has built successfully, would you drive a fully loaded 18-wheeler over it?

p.s. i havent done any test for my bridge, no stress calculations, all i know is that other people have built a bridge similar to mine that works.. so what could possibly go wrong right?

Apply YOUR logic to the official story,

We did no testing,

im going to stop you right there..

within the first few words of your post you are already wrong, you need to learn your history before i can be bothered reading the rest..

prove to me the mercury, gemini and all apollo missions prior to apollo 11 were not tests..

The OP has not set out to prove that.

The ONLY people to get through the earth radiation belts are American space test pilots who were loyal to the Nixon administration. The Russians have never been beyond 475km and that is an historical FACT.

it is also a Historical FACT that NASA landed men on the moon.

Curious statement that the guy makes about Orion, but I take into consideration that the Atlas V was e most powerful rocket we've ever made and that it could afford the trajectory to dodge the belts because of pure power. Maybe the Orion is riding on a rocket that can't avoid the bad parts of the belt like the past programs? It makes sense with what's been quoted and the fact that we'd need new technology to shield the amount of radiation THIS crew is taking.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Yeah, the Russians did get to the moon, they used landers and rovers though, one such lander returned soil samples back to earth.

It appears you could do with learning a bit more about the missions to the moon, perhaps then your ignorance won't be so obvious.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Actually, I saw the experiment done on mythbusters, and well equipped ameteurs probably could carry out the experiment if they wanted.

scienceblogs.com...

As for the rocks, well dozens, if not hundreds of geologists would have studied lunar soil by now, from both the American and Russian missions.

So, I don't need to trust NASA, just the geologists who have handled the soil.

Of course, if you want to trust a YouTube video, that is clearly, without a doubt your prerogative.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

You should look into earth-moon-earth communication

LINK

The moon was our first "communications satellite" after WW2.

originally posted by: NiZZiM
Curious statement that the guy makes about Orion, but I take into consideration that the Atlas V was e most powerful rocket we've ever made and that it could afford the trajectory to dodge the belts because of pure power. Maybe the Orion is riding on a rocket that can't avoid the bad parts of the belt like the past programs? It makes sense with what's been quoted and the fact that we'd need new technology to shield the amount of radiation THIS crew is taking.

saturn V is the most powerful rocket ever made.

the atlas v is capable of getting 18,500kg to LEO, the saturn V 118,000kg.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: choos

it is also a Historical FACT that NASA landed men on the moon.

It is a historical CLAIM...

The debate for me will only be settled...once we will be able to go some Earth telescope and look up the "relics" and the hardware (not to mention rover tracks) with our own blue eyes, in detail. Not pics from NASA various missions...but first hand viewing. Until such time...it will always be up for debate, because the claimers are unable to provide a proof of claim that can not be recreated via other "earthly" means.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Nixon again?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You're so wrong it's not even funny.

This issue taken as a whole is about the claims made by a handful of deceitful charlatans, aka Sibrel and White etc.

The mountain of corroborated data that shows we were on the moon, six times, verses the many times refuted claims made by proven liars, and swallowed by delusional morons.

That's what this debate is about.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

quoting myself:

The debate FOR ME will only be settled

You may believe what you want. In the mean time...name one proof that can not be recreated/obtained by other means...or specifically...name one that could only be obtained by sending people to the Moon.

Every other nonsense from either camp is of no importance.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You say "name one proof"?
This request, as is the norm with people who entertain the moon hoax fallacy, belies your ignorance of the Apollo program. The moon hoax lie relies upon this ignorance, it relies upon the confirmation bias of 'conspiracy' prone, it relies upon a worldview/belief system fostered by youtube fraudsters, the moon hoax doesn't want you to learn, the moon hoax doesn't want you to search for the actual truth, the moon hoax wants you to be an idiot who thinks he's smarter than everybody else.

You say "name one proof"? I say show me one single shred of evidence that has ever stood up to scrutiny that proves we didn't land on the moon six times.

There's only one "camp" and that's the little bivouac made by moon hoax believers.

The rest is reality.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

I'm guessing that's a NO on the "one single" proof that can not be obtained on Earth.

The moon hoax is a proving ground for me, people who believe it are idiots in my books.

You are free think that. I'm might also be tempted to state..that all people that believe in the unseen God are idiots. After saying that...I hope you realize how narrow minded such statement would be.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I retracted that last statement.

It's a bit harsh. But the sentiment is still mine.

No I don;t think people who believe in Gods are idiots, but it's a good comparison, the moon hoax and organised religion. Both are beliefs systems. But the difference is that there is a verifiable mountain of data with regards to the Apollo program verses what? Ignorant and wilfully deceptive claims, touted by proven liars and con-men.

If you, or anybody else really wants to know the truth it's there for you to study, that people choose to ignore the data and embrace lies is indicative of mental deficiency, of course it's all wrapped up in "open mindedness" and "question everything" rhetoric which is just that....rhetoric.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

And then the conspiracy theorists will say that the relics were put there by secret missions decades later, and the cycle of woo will begin again...

Can anybody here post up some hard maths and science to refute the numbers that show that the radiation dose encountered by the astronauts passing through the Van Allen belts was pretty trivial?


Anyone?


Bueller?

You are free think that. I'm might also be tempted to state..that all people that believe in the unseen God are idiots. After saying that...I hope you realize how narrow minded such statement would be.

A fair analogy. Belief in god(s) is a pretty good sign of poor critical thinking and a willingness to believe in nonsense with zero evidence.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

But the difference is that there is a verifiable mountain of data with regards to the Apollo program verses what?

There is mountain of data..no doubt. Verifiable in what sense...? Does any of that data irrefutably proves people were on the Moon at one point ? Not irrefutably.

It points to it...if we relinquish any skepticism...and trust the authority, no questions asked. If I were a devout believer in God...most likely I would have believed Apollo no questions ask.

As I stated before...all of the Apollo hard proof of trip to the Moon is re-creatable back here on Earth. Now you perhaps don't mind that fact and are inclined to believe all the data and pics you've been given.

Sadly, or gladly...I'm not such a person. I only trust my eyes and my experiences.

I don't know what's wrong with Apollo...if anything. I feel it like people "feel" God. What exactly is hidden I'm not sure. Maybe the fact that we didn't go...or maybe the manner in which we went is hidden. Again, I'm unsure.

Once I get to that telescope...and see it with my eyes...all my doubts will wash away.


Finally...the reason I linger on the fence about the Apollo...is one of my notions...printed there in the signature.

I think...if something is proven beyond any doubt...there would never be a conspiracy about it. But when irrefutable proof is lacking, people tend to theorize on what might have happened.

a reply to: Rob48

And then the conspiracy theorists will say that the relics were put there by secret missions decades later, and the cycle of woo will begin again...

depends on what you have in mind...if it's a reflector thing...than I have to say...it's nice...but not irrefutable proof. I'm sure you know why...therefore I wont insult you by specifying.

Can anybody here post up some hard maths and science to refute the numbers that show that the radiation dose encountered by the astronauts passing through the Van Allen belts was pretty trivial?

LOL...I don't mind...which in turn only puts additional doubt about today's concerns about the VAB's radiation belts.

Apollo proponents want it both ways...they want for the VAB to be harmless to humans if traversed in a certain manner...yet...it's way too dangerous to try that today.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I don't even know where to start with your post, so I'm not going to bother.

No disrespect but you are clearly in denial.

The truth doesn't mean as much to you as you'd have others know.

You're whole paradigm revolves around a mindset, which you obviously(like pretty much all hoax believers) are proud of.

One thing I've learned is there's no talking to people like you.

Edit: BTW why do you guys always say stuff like "I'm on the fence about Apollo" when this is clearly not the case? Just admit you don't believe we landed on the moon. It's like a get out clause. It really does reveal the minds of hoax believers, I don't know why but I'm not sure if I believe that man landed on the moon! Foolishness on a stick.