It was a model indeed. A model for all the human race to look to and see what we can achieve if we just put some money and good old honest hard work towards a problem.
Oh, but you probably meant some type of hoax nonsense though, right?
@sardoniclysane I'm not saying they didnt go.. but some of the docking footage looks like a model & green screen.. looks rivited and welded in china.. the real bit looks real and shiney smooth the fake bit looks fake like a big budget thunderbirds model..
@YDDES Chroma keying is a technique for compositing two images or frames together in which a color (or a small color range) from one image is removed (made transparent), revealing another image behind it.. blue screen/green screen is the same thing, CGI just makes it a lot easier these days.
@KungFriedChicken Yes, I know. Actually, movie special effects is one of my hobbies. It's quite easy to spot blue/green screen effects shots made before the era of CGI. There's NO signs of any such effects in the Apollo films.
@KungFriedChicken I know. Blue screen was used extensively in those days. It's quite easy to spot. Not even George Lucas or Steven Spielberg were able to effectively hide the use in their movies. That's why Steven Spielberg used other methods in "2001".
I haven't seen one single film from Apollo where blue/green screen has been used.
Keep in mind I mean no Disrespect to Braun, but there are multiple sources and every implication the V2 rocketry was in fact a derivative of Robert H. Goddards work.
@sardoniclysane ooooo bullshit, thats all part of the dont inform the public that nasa's brain mass, mainly consists of former german nazi's who have been given a free pass to america!.. just like the german sheppard dog had a name change for awhile and were called alsatian's because anything german was very unpopular at the time :)~
It's common knowledge that German Engineers were working on both sides of the space race. But ignoring Goddards contributions to spaceflight is just plain silly.
Idle speculation at best, since the Shuttle was barely based on any of the Saturn designs, and as glorious as the Saturn V was in it's time, only launched 13 times. Meanwhile STS just had it's 135th mission?
@sardoniclysane yeah but the american tax payer was ripped off big time with the space shuttle.. the tax payers already had payed for a space station and the shuttle was suppose to be exactly that, a shuttle to take them to a destination.. but they made the shuttle its own destination.. and what happened with all that money?.. ISS is 30 years behind what america bought and paid to nasa and was never delivered.. theives amoungst theives
@YDDES nasa was already payed for shuttle program which included the cost of building there own space station for the shuttle to go to.. they built the shuttle, god knows what they done with the rest of the money, and then made the shuttle its own destination up until the ISS started.. nasa was already payed to have there own fully operational space station more than 20 years ago.. never delivered but payed for by taxpayer.
@YDDES hmm i will try find some vids on youtube maybe hehe.. but its true.. maybe can find offical vid i dunno.. see what happens but could find it in government expenditure records on nasa
@KungFriedChicken NASA gets it's funding from the Congress from year to year. No space station was paid for in advance. USA PLANNED to build a larger station, but when USSR collapsed, it was deamed unnecessary. So, the Congress and NASA settled for a smaller, cheaper International station, partly to involve the Russian specialists, so they wouldn't turn to "unfriendly" powers. A lot of money was "wasted" on the X-33, X-34 and X-37 that should replace the Shuttle, and the X-38 "space-lifeboat".
As for what should have came next, NERVA showed ample promise, but due to the uneducated opinion of both the Public and the government, was never given the green-light that it should have.
How so? Keep in mind "looks like" is not an actual argument. In order to state specifically that "flash gordon was more realistic" you have to prove to have an understanding of the engineering and science involved in the moon landings.
@sardoniclysane Bleib cool :-) Ich muss dir nichts beweisen... Die Mondlandung ist für mich ein Fake und du kannst daran nichts ändern.
Das einzige was damals funktionierte war die Saturn5 die Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun erbaut hatte. Er war ein deutscher Ingenieur und sogar stellvertretender Direktor der NASA. Denn muss du doch kennen. Wir sind die besten Techniker.
Und das Video hier ist ein Witz > Flash Gordon war realistischer.
Actually, yes, you do. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you need to present extraordinary evidence. The mountain of evidence cooperates the mainstream version of events (ie that the moon landings happened as chronicled). Stating otherwise without a shred of evidence just makes you look like you're either after other peoples money (as many hoax proponents are, re Kaysing and White), or you are ignorant about the actual facts of the events as they transpired.
@ItalianoAmericano They did it perfectly in lunar orbit six times precisely because of that prior practice in earth orbit. I don't recall very many problems with Gemini docking in earth orbit involving actual rendezvous technique. I remember an Agena launch failure, and a backup target's shroud failed to separate (shrouds are unnecessary on lunar launches). Oh, and Gemini VIII had a stuck thruster.
There was a close call on Apollo 14; they nearly didn't dock after TLI.
This video proves nothing, and it looks like a simulation with a model, hanging from a wire. I see the thing turning, but I do NOT see any rockets firing to start or stop any of these motions.
@mooninquirer You apparently know little or nothing about space propulsion, specifically the near-universal use of hypergolic propellants for maneuvering thrusters. Except for the occasional ignition transient on the larger engines, or impingement effects when they hit materials, hypergolic thrusters in vacuum produce no visible plumes.
So what you think it looks like is irrelevant to reality.
@ApolloWasReal Hmmmmm, isn't it convenient that "hypergolic" propellants produce no visible fumes ? And we should still see wavy lines, even if they were transparent, from the refraction of light through a medium, as opposed to empty space.
Well, what the public in general believes is important, and you cannot keep playing the public for a fool. That is why they show only brief clips of the Apollo missions on TV, and generally avoid the moon buggy.
@mooninquirer Convenient or not, it's simply a fact. Many upper stages (e.g., Delta II) use hypergolic propellants. More than a few have carried TV cameras showing that their plumes are in fact completely invisible after a brief starting transient. You can see the engine bell glowing, however.
What the public in general believes is irrelevant if it happens to be wrong.
You must not have looked much at the Apollo record because there is plenty on the LRV, including TV and film footage.
@mooninquirer Why don't we see refraction through the thruster plumes? That's actually a good question, and it has a perfectly reasonable answer. First of all, the thruster firings here are very brief. The LM after ascent had no descent stage and nearly empty tanks so its moments of inertia were about 10% of what they were prior to landing. Second, plumes expand much more rapidly in vacuum than in the atmosphere. Third, behind them is either black sky or the irregular lunar surface.
@ItalianoAmericano It is possible every few days to dock with the ISS in less than a day. But a standard 3-day rendezvous creates daily launch opportunities, saves propellant, and gives the Shuttle crew time to adapt to space and work on any problems. In short, there's no hurry. The LM ascent stage had very limited consumables so they WERE in a hurry. The crew was already space-adapted. And the orbits were nearly equatorial around a slow-turning body with the CSM actively helping.
@ItalianoAmericano Care to justify your assumption that rendezvous and docking is easier in earth orbit? Fact is, it's actually harder. An atmosphere limits your minimum safe altitude. Greater gravity requires bigger (and more complex and less reliable) rockets and far more propellant. The faster spin shortens your launch windows. The ISS is in a high inclination orbit that reduces allowable errors. And the Shuttle is much heavier than Apollo, with limited maneuvering propellant.
@ItalianoAmericano Care to justify your assumption that rendezvous and docking is easier in earth orbit? Fact is, it's actually harder. An atmosphere limits your minimum safe altitude. Greater gravity requires bigger (and more complex and less reliable) rockets and far more propellant. The faster spin shortens your launch windows. The ISS is in a high inclination orbit that reduces allowable errors. And the Shuttle is much heavier than Apollo, with limited maneuvering propellant.
@ItalianoAmericano Only assholes call other people assholes, when they can't explain something. This is why Phil Plait lost the debate with Joe Rogan so badly ---- because he couldn't just call people assholes, moontards, fucktards, or whatever. He HAD to explain it, and he could not get over many contradictions. It was NOT because he is stupid, or uninformed ---- it is because Phil Plait was defending something that even he knew did not happen. Type into youtube : JOE ROGAN PHIL PLAIT
@mooninquirer Facts are facts that don't depend on debates between specific people for their validity. Phil Plait is an astronomer and teacher, not an aerospace engineer. He knows the general principles of space flight and how Apollo was done (yes, it *was* done) but he could not be expected to cite every detail from memory. He is also at a disadvantage against a baiting opponent who uses the ever-popular Gish Gallop (constantly changing the subject faster than the other person can answer).
@ItalianoAmericano Yeah, on Earth, if one is driving a car, and goes too fast he can easily cause a fender-bender. And that is with a ROAD and breaks for tires to grip !!! Further, a THROTTLE-ABLE ROCKET PROPELLED craft had never been tested on Earth. The very first one was the LM for the Apollo 7 mission, in Oct 1968, during the administration of 33 rd degree Freemason LBJ ( who also had JFK murdered ), just days after James Webb resigned from NASA.
@mooninquirer There was no LM on Apollo 7; it was a CSM-only flight. Apollo 5 was an unmanned earth orbital test of the LM. It worked. Apollo 9 was a manned flight test in earth orbit, and Apollo 10 was a manned test in lunar orbit. So the LM was flight tested 3 times before Apollo 11.
If you don't even bother to check readily verifiable information like this, that doesn't say much for your commitment to the truth.
As for your rampant paranoia, I can only suggest psychiatric help.
No, in fact he's an ex engineer, he worked for ESA/ESTEC here in Holland as an assistant Industrial Costs Auditor I believe. But now he's old (LOL) and teaches young kids...
Yeah, and Newton's laws proves this is faked footage. This is an impossible motion, if it were done by rockets. I told my physics professor that we know scientific truths based on observation, and since we do not see the astronauts in 1/6 gravity of the moon, that should tell us there is something wrong with the theory. But he replied that the fact the astronauts clearly are not in 1/6 gravity should tell you that it is a hoax, and put your faith in science, and not the government.
@mooninquirer Dude you didn't ask a Physics teacher,you asked the Phys. Ed. teacher.
In this video they're not in 1/6 gravity, they're essentially in a free fall.
So let me ask you and your Phys. Ed. teacher this: Do you believe all of the Gemini, Apollo, Spaceshuttle, Skylab, Soyuz, Mir and International Spacestation EVAs' and docking maneuvers were fake also then?
Like Ricky Ricardo said: "Lucy you gotta allota explainin to do"
@Tweekerhead No, I asked my university physics professor that. This was for a two semester introductory calculus-based course in physics, and the most rigorous one offered, intended for physics, mathematics, and advanced engineering students. It used the textbook, "Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday & Resnick, which, importantly, had a whole chapter on gravity but NEVER mentions the moon landing. He also repeatedly said it was a hoax on his own accord. I do not dispute the other things.
@mooninquirer I think you should ask your university for a tuition refund because they are hiring obviously unqualified faculty. That is, if he really said what you claim he said and aren't simply making it up.
I didn't keep my copy of Halliday & Resnick from high school, but I don't doubt that Apollo wasn't mentioned because it was printed before the landings. However, we did discuss various Apollo physics in class and no one saw any reason to doubt its reality.
@Tweekerhead Don't undermine phys-ed teachers, or athletes. All one has to do is trust their own eyes and judgment. We do NOT see 1/6 gravity. One need not be a nerd or really into science to sense that something funny is going on. A football player asked my high school science teacher why we don't see evidence of them in 1/6 gravity. My teacher said very emphatically that he was not paid to be a propagandist for NASA, his job was to teach SCIENCE.
@mooninquirer Sounds like you have great teachers down there in the Ozarks.
I haven't heard of or met any physics teacher that said the Apollo was faked or couldn't have been done from an engineering standpoint, yours is the only one in the world.
God my man, your claims are based on fallacies, I can't help you. I hope you find the truth you desire.
And BTW, Collier made up allot of funny things as he went along.
Percy,the hair helmet overheated his brain into thinking he had real answers.
@Tweekerhead Because Jack Crow was so bluntly honest, and would tell the truth, even if it seemed rude, including about the limitations of his OWN work, he had a rare and highly valued quality. He was awarded a grant from the NSA to found and direct the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, at Florida State, as opposed to MIT. He had many other positive qualities as well, and a very optimistic attitude about what technology can do. He loved research, but also loved teaching a great deal
@mooninquirer "trust their own eyes and judgment". In other words, their intuition. That's a pretty succinct description of one of the most common fallacies among the hoaxhead crowd. Our human intuitions are based on the experience of living on the earth's surface, not in space or on other bodies where conditions are quite different. So unless one understands and properly applies the underlying physical principles to those places, their intuitions will lead them astray.
@mooninquirer Don't confuse your misunderstanding of Newton's laws with the real thing. There's nothing wrong with the motion depicted in this clip. In fact, it's an excellent demonstration of Newton's laws in action, and if I were teaching physics I'd consider using it (or similar clips) in class.
This is an impossible motion in space. It was like a car parking. But there is no road in space, and you can't break. We don't see the rockets that would cause this almost jerking motion, with abrupt stopping, and even if there were rockets visible, there would be no abrupt changes in the motion.
This film was probably even labelled by NASA as an animation.
@mooninquirer An educated scientist interviewing a kid with nothing more than straw-man fallacies and non-sequitur logic. Why? Besides I don't know Phil Plait, I know a former astronaut tho, and he doesn't do interview for kids with annoying nasal voices.
BTW, if this film is hard for you to grasp, I can help. This film is sped up. And both crafts are in a free fall state, orbiting around Sun with the Earth and Moon at the same time. If you can't understand Newton's law, try Ernst Mach's law.
@receiver69 Because it was extremely difficult to do this in LEO in the same time period, let alone trying to liftoff from another planet and trying to find, catch up and dock with the CSM on another planet orbit. It's very improbable to say the least.
@ItalianoAmericano It takes two days for the Shuttle to dock with the ISS because the Shuttle can only be launched from Florida and the ISS is in an established orbit about 190 miles up. It takes time for the trajectory of the shuttle to coincide with the ISS's orbit. The Command Module orbited at about 60 miles in an orbit designed to coincide with the LEM's trajectory - after all, prior to the landing, the LEM and the CSM were attached and in the same orbit. weren't they?
The Apollo Lunar Modules launched one orbit after it's target. (LM meeting CSM in orbit) but that was the moon, with 2-hour orbital periods, nearly perfectly equatorial orbits, generally only two or three days after landing, and with the CSM doing "phasing" burns to keep flying over the landing site. This was one problem that Apollo would have faced had far longer missions been planned: the CSM would have needed a lot more fuel to keep "phasing" its orbit to stay in reach of the LM.
@Tweekerhead ... oh so clever beavis or butthead .... shill/trolls are always so keen witted .... hey pigeon, WHERE ARE THE GUYS WITH THE HOSES??? lmfao!!!!
@pt1gard When you type your funny words you show how little you know about science, physics and the Moon. You're just like Ralphy Rene, scientifically illiterate.
You really think that's a blue screen or a projected background?
@Tweekerhead ... hey, dumbshit, do you need a degree in physics from MIT to know you cant tear duct tape (that wasnt even packed) with psi loaded gloves???
@Tweekerhead ... troll scum shilly on YT 24/7 LMFAO .... look at the tub of goo you think docked in space ... what a lame cointelpro bucket you truly are ....
hey, seen any dust on the LEMs landing cups??? LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're beatin a dead horse man, sit down and shut up and let the grown -ups talk for a change.
You've had your ass handed to ya' so many times, you're to stupid to realize that you're making a fool outta' yourself. Aren't your arms tired from holding your ass this long?
BTW, Nimrod, ever notice that when they walk on the Moon the dust falls immediately to the ground WITHOUT AERATION? Only in a vacuum can that happen.
@Tweekerhead ... do you know what shill even means??? I cant be a shill bc i know its a phony, you are the shill, dumbshit .... what a trailer park biscuit .... now go find the MEN WITH THE HOSES, DOOFUS
LMFAO
Um, check my moon loser vid, you might learn something ...
plus email me so i can destroy you on the radio debate :)
@pt1gard Shill, well...You're the only one around here sellin' something moron.
That's what a shill does! From the start when I saw you guys using that word I thought, do they see the irony in this? You're selling Kaysing, Rene's propaganda.
And yes in reality, you are the shill propagandist. If I were you I'd stop using that word, you make yourself look like a total fool.
I'll come on your little radio show, but you can't stick to the facts, you'll break down like you do here and freak out.
@pt1gard Debate...count me in...I wouldn't count on idiots like this troll though bro...he's like bambino...that guy was so owned he never came back again...lol
watch?v=J6DhY1NvmIc
You might as well bang your head on a wall brother, at least you'll have some lumps to show for it. These guys are weak incarnate!
@un4g1v3n1 Oh man...I really want to come on your little radio show, I will destroy you on this matter, the facts just aren't on your side. I wanna run over you both like a steam roller, and watch you both freak out like you do here, then all you have left is insults. Man you guys make me look like a mental giant..thanks
@un4g1v3n1 I just saw your video interviewing Jarrah White.......really sad man, I didn;t realize that you guys are a bunch of kids. I wasn't really takin' you guys very seriously before ..but now! Damn! What are yous guys 18-19 years old? You should take down that interview vid' ..makes you look kinda' lame dude.
I 'enjoyed' one too... I knew he is a noob, but this Un4 dude is one of the worst conspiracists I've seen. He's a self-absorbed fool thinking he is smarter than scientists, physicists and top engineers.
@Tweekerhead If it were so lame, then why don't YOU debate Jarrah White, in real time, with audio. You can't hide behind one liners and rude comments, like you can in these short comment boxes. Why doesn't Phil Plait debate JW, or, for that matter, why doesn't ANY person who calls himself a scientist do that ? So many of my science teachers and professors have said either it was a hoax or something like, " I am not here to be a propagandist for NASA; I am here to teach you SCIENCE ! "
@Tweekerhead I do not dispute the other space missions, although I doubt docking maneuvers took place in space. I dispute Apollo 7 onward. The Space Shuttle was legitimate. Now, my English teacher, who had a Ph.D., and was VERY no-nonsense, allowed us to watch on TV the landing of the first space shuttle. That was the ONLY time he allowed us to watch TV. But I asked him why was it such a big deal, because it was nothing compared to the moon missions. He said they didn't happen
@Tweekerhead That sounds like a made up name, but I will check out "Luke Quixote." Well, I know for a fact that they did NOT occur, not just because I would rather trust great men who were actually scientists, as opposed to the government and media, which has bogus news, and thinks that every detail of the boring OJ Simpson trial is real important news. The astronauts themselves refuse to swear under oath that it happened, and get very angry and/or nervous when asked.
@mooninquirer ... MI, these sock puppets have been invited by me and given my email 100xs to come on radio shows i set up on rbn and oracle and yet not a one has ever come on to share their POVs, interesting eh??? yet they will troll here forever and claim they dont have time to come on the radio face to face so to speak ... I have got Dr K and Mike Herzog to invite Jarrah and Rick and myself on the radio several times and never has one of these lying trolls called in--ZERO!!!
Nobody wants to play with you on the radio cuz' they know you'll be reduced to the personal attack fallacies you rely on here in these forums. Besides your arguments and claims are based on fiction, just another waste of time. Read a book.
@pt1gard I'll demolish any fallacies you spew, you know that Tard'.
You especially show traits of adolescent egocentrism, anybody threatens your belief system, you go spastic just stalker, unforgiven, realdrummer and nasafakedit etc. etc.
I just got into this little hoax fray recently, I can already see the weakest links in the chain, you.
Funny if the hoax was real it would require NASA to be inept and brilliant at the same time.
Which is it?
But you won't answer any of my questions,you can't.
@Tweekerhead ... put it where it counts, message me at pt1gard@aol.com, when I set up our next moon show you will be first apollogist shill that ever came on and was destroyed .... you wont, you live on YT yet say you dont have time to debate to bigger audience LIVE ..... lmfao, scum bucket .... any idea where the guys with the hoses are or how duct tape sticks at 500 degree swings on the fake moon????
@pt1gard 's To stupid to realize he's making a fool of himself. Ego means more that truth to him. Can't except facts or reality and is obviously poorly educated.
Call the National Center for Learning Disabilities, it's the one thing with National in the title people like can trust.
Are you still organizing those muppet shows? Get real. No one is going to 'discuss' this idiocy about a moonhoax conspiracy with you hoaxheads. Something like a TV show on "why water is wet" thing... LOL
@pt1gard Dust... Even if you slow down the film here on Earth, dust will not behave the way it does in the Apollo films, THERE'S NO AERATION OF THE LUNAR DUST IN THE FILMS ....FACT Of course you'll put the blinders on and say, they slowed the film down. Still no AERATION of the dust.
@Tweekerhead ... you proved only that you duck all my questions, your dust is not even a topic bc it denotes nothing .... hey, why cant the nauts agree if they can see stars???
@pt1gard No you're ducking my questions, and the DUST is a real issue, a revealing one at that, but you don't want to talk about the dust. And it's obvious why you don't. You can't explain that issue away to fit your argument.
Stars, how could you see stars with 24k gold plated visor. It would be like trying to see stars from Earth with a welder's mask on.
Or In your case trying to see the truth in your little world from your Mom's basement. LOL This like being the smartest kid in class.
@Tweekerhead ... your dust is BS nothing!!! .... LMFAO on the gold visor, that was seen tipped up more than once so they woulda gone blind etc ... also, one naut said the stars were brilliant .... gawd what a zemmi .... you amuse me, esp. for being a fossil at 50!!!!!!
@pt1gard Wrong again.... The dust is everything! Dust does not behave that was on Earth! Looks I found your Achilles heal on that one. Try to explain it away moron. The dust doesn't aerate when it's kicked up on the Moon...FACT ..
@Tweekerhead ... they can fake anything, doofus .... Just like the petrified wood the nauts gave to the Dutch Prime Minister LMFAO .... google this, folks: Moon Rock Is Really Just Petrified Wood
@Tweekerhead ... mr pedantic, cant you comprehend, I just told you its all faked on on a set in the usa... are you really that stupid?? answer is: YES!!! .... you duck EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MINE ... what a clown ... petrified wood given the PM by the liar Armstrong = LMFAO ... course he wept when facing students at a graduation years later when his manchurian cues were wearing off
@pt1gard Petrified wood,yes it was. As far as we know W Drees replaced it! Any moron could have seen it for what it was.
I have examined a rock brought back by Mr. Armstrong, it was a Moon rock,trust me. Why are you ducking my question about non-aerated dust on the Moon?
Can't explain it away eh'.
The LEM was made of aluminum with titanium fasteners, you're just seeing the Mylar. Did you really think they went up there in a sleeping bag made of canvas?
"I have examined a rock brought back by Mr. Armstrong, it was a Moon rock,trust me."
TOO FUNNY!! .. Not only are you a clueless little parrot, but you're also quite delusional.
It doesn't matter which American fraudster passed off the petrifed wood as being a "moon" rock during the A11 Goodwill Tour .. It was still as FAKE as the "moon" landings were.
Speaking of fraudsters, Nixon was not only in on the Apollo fraud, but he was also involved in the JFK assassination.
@Tweekerhead lmfao,. you examined a kidney stone maybe ... you dont even know where the guys are with the hoses ....
see you think its about math and science, that dont mean shit, bluff boy .... the belts, the punctured space suits, the gold visors down, the C rock, the reflection of a non naut in a visor, nauts being tugged by visible wires and defying laws of motion, grissom & baron being offed ... you are a flunky, nasa is run by nazis like von braun ... who do you think you are talking to?
@pt1gard More ramblings? You're clutching for straw.
It is about simple math, the numbers don't lie, the Apollo footage is perfect for analysis. You can do what you want to the playback speed, the gravitational acceleration can be detected.
Now again..Let's go back to the head of your snake.
Rene claim this was wrong, F=Gm1m2r/r3 Can you tell us why he thought it was wrong, and/or why it's still correct and Rene never really un-proved this simple Newtonian equation? But you probably can't.
41 years and counting... Most people are smart enough to believe reputable scientists, engineers, geochemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers and astronauts from across the globe who state that the moonlandings are a fact. Only delusional self-absorbed fools shout "fake!" and base their 'proof' on anonymous high-school dropouts and 'twooffinders' who found everything they needed to conclude the Apollo program was a hoax from some distorted YouTube videos.
@Rob260259 I think I figured it out Rob.....The Lunar Lander looks like a porta' toilet to the hoaxers, if it had looked like a Clingon Bird of Prey they would've been content with the Apollo program. Hoaxers' don't like the Mylar insulation covering the aluminum shell of the LEM.
PS. That was allota' fun yesterday, fun to taunt kids eh'.
@pt1gard You mean Hasselblad ? Are you the Hoaxtard that said it was a Hassabald? ..No that was stalker, not very bright guy.
To answer your question, yes if you point away from the sun and the albedo of the Moon's regolith and set the exposure correctly, yes. But if your taking a pic' of an astronaut in a white suit while pointing towards the surface of the Moon, I would think maybe the exposure would be fast to detect stars. That's a pretty obvious answer wouldn't you say.
@Tweekerhead ... hey doofus, so ur saying its impossible to take pics on moon of stars???
they took a pic a minute yanno .... also when did they attach and detach cam when crawling in and out of the cramped LEM ... also why wont nasa let people measure the LEM inside quarters anymore??
@pt1gard Please stop proselytizing me, or sorry...Stop hitting on me, I told you I'm not gay. It's cool that you are, obvious to see with your propensity for penises and Jarrah.
Seriously it's cool that your gay, but please stop sending me these messages about getting laid.
I'm married, of course I don't get laid.
Now STFU answer my questions ...Do it. Or run away and hide.
@Tweekerhead ... umm where did i evern mention a "tool" must be your fixation ... my point is im sure you dont get any female ass... since you wont address other things, interesting you do this LMFAO
TRUTH DOES NOT FEAR INVESTIGATION
why wont nasa allow the LEM to be measured every again????
"To date Jarrah has failed to produce even a single qualified expert who agrees with Jarrah's conclusion that the Apollo missions must have been faked."
Who said it? Must have been some 'Nasa shill' ofcourse.
@pt1gard Yeah, very good point. Jim Collier makes that point in WAS IT ONLY A PAPER MOON, and David Percy makes a similar point in WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MOON. ( google those words in all capitals letters to see those videos )
@pt1gard I saw Jim Collier the other day, he's math is all wrong and he made it up as he went along. You think GPS cell phones are fake? CD players fake? Harrier jet fake?
Now here's a question you can duck, actually 2 non related, 1st. Can you show how Rene was wrong or right about Newton's 1st law?
2nd. How much decompression and compression can a human withstand, and how much pressure was used in the Lunar Module when it was on the Moon?
@Tweekerhead hey arent you the shill who has a moon rock too ... you met jim huh, have you hand jobbed neil also??
why wont they allow anyone to measure the LEM
you duck it all ... i only answer things I can see, not math .... not interested in your fictional number or thrust ... we can prove my things easily, yours are conjecture ...
@pt1gard You've made a fool outta' yourself so many times , and you don't even realize it.
You've been owned and you aint aware of it, ignorance is bliss. Game set match ....lololol Are you 14 yrs. old? Really are you 14 ? You're in your own little world kid, go away...I aint' got time to teach the mentally handicapped.
@pt1gard Won't allow anyone to measure the LM -- WTF are you talking about? The plans (with dimensions) are on the NASA technical reports server. You can see several live specimens in the flesh at museums and look at them and take pictures till your heart's content.
Just because the museum staff won't let you bust up their priceless historical artifact doesn't mean NASA is holding any deep dark secrets.
@Rob260259 OK, name those "reputable" scientists ! It is the other way around ----- scientists do not want to embarrass themselves by claiming the moon landing happened, because THEN they have to explain the physics of it, and they can't, because it contradicts the laws of physics. It really is embarrassing for a scientist to do what Phil Plait does --- and he was paid to make a fool of himself. Those with professorships do not need to be a propagandist for NASA, and say it is a hoax.
Ever heard of Orbital Mechanics? The speed of an orbit is related to its altitude. The higher you are the slower your orbital period. To catch up the LM need only drop into a slightly lower orbit, then raise its altitude to meet the CSM. Once they are a within a few feet they can close the gap by making minor adjustments to their speed with a RCS thrusters. Remember that orbital rendezvous is done regularly in Earth orbit, where the orbiting objects are doing about 17,500mph.
Name those scientists? All of them? Are you mad? Here are three very reputable:
- Dr Trevor Walker (Astrophysicist)
- Dr Karl Kruszelnicki (physicist)
- Dr Chriet Titulaer (Astronomer)
Now you name three reputable scientists that agree with your ridiculous claim.
No, it's not the other way around. Obviously you know NOTHING about scientists and the research they do. If anyone would be able to prove a hoax, he would be famous.
@Rob260259 No, the scientist would NOT be famous, because the media would refuse to publish his statement. Teachers and professors, of NECESSITY, say either that the moon landing was a hoax, or imply it very strongly, by very emphatically singling out the moon landing as UNIQUELY the one thing that they will REFUSE to discuss the physics of. I have NOTHING to prove to YOU. I only ask the public that they ask THEIR science teachers, and see for themselves.
"because the media would refuse to publish his statement"
How do you know? I know various media who want to publish all about scams and illegal matter. And you know them, too, I know for sure. Your statement doesn't hold water.
Talking about science teachers... I have asked some. One of them says you are a fool. I don't agree with him. You're worse.
@Rob260259 Oh really ? Then help us out here. You can start with the mainstream media giving a voice to Dr. Peter Duesberg, et al., to expose the HIV = AIDS hoax. I have tried to get science journalists to expose this, but they cannot, because their editors refuse. The same thing is true for that phony debate over the mosque at ground zero --- in which the media lost A LOT of the public's attrention. The media wouldn't even consider that 911 was an inside job.
@mooninquirer Ever consider the reason that you can't get science journalists to "expose the HIV = AIDS hoax" might be because your premise is wrong? As far as 911 being an inside job, I'd say a lot of people have considered whether it was an inside job. Considered and rejected. Now as for Bush/Cheney *exploiting* 9/11 to the hilt, that's a different story with plenty of support. Why isn't that one enough for you?
@ApolloWasReal Incorrect, because the media have REALLY lost a huge amount of readership and TV viewers with their constant reporting of the mosque at ground zero and the Quran burning by that Christian pastor ( who himself did not show any anger toward Islam, and didn't seem to care about the issue ). The general public didn't give a rat's ass one way or the other, especially about the mosque at ground zero, and was sick of the media attention. The purpose of the media is NOT to make money
@ApolloWasReal Actually, Bush did NOT exploit 911 to the hilt, because Obama did NOT change policy, and neither did the Democrats who gained control of Congress in 2006 over anger of the wars, and falsely blaming them on Bush. If it were just Bush, then the wars would have ended immediately upon Obama becoming president. These wars are wars for ISRAEL, and the ONLY person the mainstream media had on to discuss this was David Duke, so as to discredit the notion.
@mooninquirer And David Duke also PROUDLY brought up his KKK past, as the media knew he would. The impression the media gave by ONLY having David Duke on air, was that " only a White supremacist, misogynist homophobic, hate filled man would ever believe the Israel Lobby even exists." They would not DARE to put on air John Mearsheimer, who is a perfect gentleman. Indeed, no American magazine published the Mearsheimer & Walt essay, and it was published in the LONDON Review of Books
@mooninquirer You seem not to understand "causality", the basic principle that if B happens after A, then B cannot have caused A. 9/11 happened on 9/11/2001. Bush invaded Afghanistan about a month later, and in the spring of 2003 he invaded Iraq on the pretext that they had been involved with al Qaeda prior to 9/11. Obama's election in 11/2008 could not have caused events in 2001-2003. But all became clear when you brought up Israel:
NASA hoax. Fake and gay. I want my money back.
nameofthepen 1 week ago
It is completely wrong, for the way the moon is seen in the background is incorrect.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
model model model model
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@KungFriedChicken
It was a model indeed. A model for all the human race to look to and see what we can achieve if we just put some money and good old honest hard work towards a problem.
Oh, but you probably meant some type of hoax nonsense though, right?
sardoniclysane 5 months ago
@sardoniclysane I'm not saying they didnt go.. but some of the docking footage looks like a model & green screen.. looks rivited and welded in china.. the real bit looks real and shiney smooth the fake bit looks fake like a big budget thunderbirds model..
KungFriedChicken 5 months ago
@KungFriedChicken "Green screen"? Was it even invented back in the 60's and 70's? "Blue screen" existed, but no CGI.
YDDES 5 months ago
@YDDES Chroma keying is a technique for compositing two images or frames together in which a color (or a small color range) from one image is removed (made transparent), revealing another image behind it.. blue screen/green screen is the same thing, CGI just makes it a lot easier these days.
KungFriedChicken 5 months ago
@KungFriedChicken Yes, I know. Actually, movie special effects is one of my hobbies. It's quite easy to spot blue/green screen effects shots made before the era of CGI. There's NO signs of any such effects in the Apollo films.
YDDES 5 months ago
@KungFriedChicken I know. Blue screen was used extensively in those days. It's quite easy to spot. Not even George Lucas or Steven Spielberg were able to effectively hide the use in their movies. That's why Steven Spielberg used other methods in "2001".
I haven't seen one single film from Apollo where blue/green screen has been used.
YDDES 5 months ago
@KungFriedChicken In that last comment I made a mistake. I meant "Stanley Kubric" avoided blue screen in "2001". Soorry.
YDDES 5 months ago
Comment removed
YDDES 5 months ago
@YDDES ooo also it was developed in the 1930s at RKO Radio Pictures
KungFriedChicken 5 months ago
@sardoniclysane helllllllllllo ?.... i expect a reply by tomorrow ;)
KungFriedChicken 5 months ago
@KungFriedChicken
You expect a reply to what by tomorrow?
sardoniclysane 5 months ago
@sardoniclysane anything will do hehehe.. I waited two days ;)
but it never tells me all the replys in my inbox.. mostly i find em by chance, like this one :)
KungFriedChicken 5 months ago
OK ;-)
JAK0690 7 months ago
Keep in mind I mean no Disrespect to Braun, but there are multiple sources and every implication the V2 rocketry was in fact a derivative of Robert H. Goddards work.
sardoniclysane 7 months ago
@sardoniclysane ooooo bullshit, thats all part of the dont inform the public that nasa's brain mass, mainly consists of former german nazi's who have been given a free pass to america!.. just like the german sheppard dog had a name change for awhile and were called alsatian's because anything german was very unpopular at the time :)~
KungFriedChicken 5 months ago
@KungFriedChicken
It's common knowledge that German Engineers were working on both sides of the space race. But ignoring Goddards contributions to spaceflight is just plain silly.
sardoniclysane 5 months ago
@sardoniclysane yeah but saying he contributed more to the space race than the germans is even sillier :)
KungFriedChicken 5 months ago
Was wäre heute NASA ohne Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun?
Eine Rinderfarm :-)
JAK0690 7 months ago
@JAK0690
Idle speculation at best, since the Shuttle was barely based on any of the Saturn designs, and as glorious as the Saturn V was in it's time, only launched 13 times. Meanwhile STS just had it's 135th mission?
sardoniclysane 7 months ago
@sardoniclysane yeah but the american tax payer was ripped off big time with the space shuttle.. the tax payers already had payed for a space station and the shuttle was suppose to be exactly that, a shuttle to take them to a destination.. but they made the shuttle its own destination.. and what happened with all that money?.. ISS is 30 years behind what america bought and paid to nasa and was never delivered.. theives amoungst theives
KungFriedChicken 5 months ago
@KungFriedChicken What??? The Shuttle built the ISS (with the help of some Russian Proton-rockets). What was not delivered?
YDDES 5 months ago
@YDDES nasa was already payed for shuttle program which included the cost of building there own space station for the shuttle to go to.. they built the shuttle, god knows what they done with the rest of the money, and then made the shuttle its own destination up until the ISS started.. nasa was already payed to have there own fully operational space station more than 20 years ago.. never delivered but payed for by taxpayer.
KungFriedChicken 5 months ago
@KungFriedChicken Were's the evidence to find for what You say about the Shuttle and Spacestation?
YDDES 5 months ago
@YDDES hmm i will try find some vids on youtube maybe hehe.. but its true.. maybe can find offical vid i dunno.. see what happens but could find it in government expenditure records on nasa
KungFriedChicken 5 months ago
@KungFriedChicken NASA gets it's funding from the Congress from year to year. No space station was paid for in advance. USA PLANNED to build a larger station, but when USSR collapsed, it was deamed unnecessary. So, the Congress and NASA settled for a smaller, cheaper International station, partly to involve the Russian specialists, so they wouldn't turn to "unfriendly" powers. A lot of money was "wasted" on the X-33, X-34 and X-37 that should replace the Shuttle, and the X-38 "space-lifeboat".
YDDES 5 months ago 2
@YDDES thats not the rumour on the streets
KungFriedChicken 5 months ago
@KungFriedChicken You're not serious...
YDDES 5 months ago
@YDDES well not really... but i'll find something on the subject ;)
KungFriedChicken 5 months ago
@KungFriedChicken tick tock tick tock
blehblehbleh90 3 months ago
@blehblehbleh90 oooo geezus man I got too many 9/11 arguments going on hehe... I'm way over this one :)
KungFriedChicken 3 months ago
As for what should have came next, NERVA showed ample promise, but due to the uneducated opinion of both the Public and the government, was never given the green-light that it should have.
sardoniclysane 7 months ago
flash gordon was more realistic :-)
JAK0690 7 months ago
@JAK0690
How so? Keep in mind "looks like" is not an actual argument. In order to state specifically that "flash gordon was more realistic" you have to prove to have an understanding of the engineering and science involved in the moon landings.
sardoniclysane 7 months ago
@sardoniclysane Bleib cool :-) Ich muss dir nichts beweisen... Die Mondlandung ist für mich ein Fake und du kannst daran nichts ändern.
Das einzige was damals funktionierte war die Saturn5 die Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun erbaut hatte. Er war ein deutscher Ingenieur und sogar stellvertretender Direktor der NASA. Denn muss du doch kennen. Wir sind die besten Techniker.
Und das Video hier ist ein Witz > Flash Gordon war realistischer.
Friede sei mit dir Kamerad.
JAK0690 7 months ago
@JAK0690
Actually, yes, you do. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you need to present extraordinary evidence. The mountain of evidence cooperates the mainstream version of events (ie that the moon landings happened as chronicled). Stating otherwise without a shred of evidence just makes you look like you're either after other peoples money (as many hoax proponents are, re Kaysing and White), or you are ignorant about the actual facts of the events as they transpired.
sardoniclysane 7 months ago
@ItalianoAmericano They did it perfectly in lunar orbit six times precisely because of that prior practice in earth orbit. I don't recall very many problems with Gemini docking in earth orbit involving actual rendezvous technique. I remember an Agena launch failure, and a backup target's shroud failed to separate (shrouds are unnecessary on lunar launches). Oh, and Gemini VIII had a stuck thruster.
There was a close call on Apollo 14; they nearly didn't dock after TLI.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
This video proves nothing, and it looks like a simulation with a model, hanging from a wire. I see the thing turning, but I do NOT see any rockets firing to start or stop any of these motions.
mooninquirer 7 months ago
@mooninquirer You apparently know little or nothing about space propulsion, specifically the near-universal use of hypergolic propellants for maneuvering thrusters. Except for the occasional ignition transient on the larger engines, or impingement effects when they hit materials, hypergolic thrusters in vacuum produce no visible plumes.
So what you think it looks like is irrelevant to reality.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal Hmmmmm, isn't it convenient that "hypergolic" propellants produce no visible fumes ? And we should still see wavy lines, even if they were transparent, from the refraction of light through a medium, as opposed to empty space.
Well, what the public in general believes is important, and you cannot keep playing the public for a fool. That is why they show only brief clips of the Apollo missions on TV, and generally avoid the moon buggy.
mooninquirer 7 months ago
@mooninquirer Convenient or not, it's simply a fact. Many upper stages (e.g., Delta II) use hypergolic propellants. More than a few have carried TV cameras showing that their plumes are in fact completely invisible after a brief starting transient. You can see the engine bell glowing, however.
What the public in general believes is irrelevant if it happens to be wrong.
You must not have looked much at the Apollo record because there is plenty on the LRV, including TV and film footage.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@mooninquirer Why don't we see refraction through the thruster plumes? That's actually a good question, and it has a perfectly reasonable answer. First of all, the thruster firings here are very brief. The LM after ascent had no descent stage and nearly empty tanks so its moments of inertia were about 10% of what they were prior to landing. Second, plumes expand much more rapidly in vacuum than in the atmosphere. Third, behind them is either black sky or the irregular lunar surface.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ItalianoAmericano It is possible every few days to dock with the ISS in less than a day. But a standard 3-day rendezvous creates daily launch opportunities, saves propellant, and gives the Shuttle crew time to adapt to space and work on any problems. In short, there's no hurry. The LM ascent stage had very limited consumables so they WERE in a hurry. The crew was already space-adapted. And the orbits were nearly equatorial around a slow-turning body with the CSM actively helping.
ApolloWasReal 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ItalianoAmericano Care to justify your assumption that rendezvous and docking is easier in earth orbit? Fact is, it's actually harder. An atmosphere limits your minimum safe altitude. Greater gravity requires bigger (and more complex and less reliable) rockets and far more propellant. The faster spin shortens your launch windows. The ISS is in a high inclination orbit that reduces allowable errors. And the Shuttle is much heavier than Apollo, with limited maneuvering propellant.
ApolloWasReal 9 months ago
@ItalianoAmericano Care to justify your assumption that rendezvous and docking is easier in earth orbit? Fact is, it's actually harder. An atmosphere limits your minimum safe altitude. Greater gravity requires bigger (and more complex and less reliable) rockets and far more propellant. The faster spin shortens your launch windows. The ISS is in a high inclination orbit that reduces allowable errors. And the Shuttle is much heavier than Apollo, with limited maneuvering propellant.
ApolloWasReal 9 months ago
hahaha it's a model for sure
KungFriedChicken 9 months ago
@KungFriedChicken The only "for sure" thing here is your stupidity.
TheFACTSRUS 9 months ago 7
@TheFACTSRUS what about you princess?..
KungFriedChicken 9 months ago
UND WER HAT DAS GANZE GEFILMT? ACHJA, DER COLLINS ;-)
JAK0690 11 months ago
@JAK0690 ja, ja. a nazi built the rocket.
andrelebaron 7 months ago
Comment removed
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ItalianoAmericano Only assholes call other people assholes, when they can't explain something. This is why Phil Plait lost the debate with Joe Rogan so badly ---- because he couldn't just call people assholes, moontards, fucktards, or whatever. He HAD to explain it, and he could not get over many contradictions. It was NOT because he is stupid, or uninformed ---- it is because Phil Plait was defending something that even he knew did not happen. Type into youtube : JOE ROGAN PHIL PLAIT
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer Facts are facts that don't depend on debates between specific people for their validity. Phil Plait is an astronomer and teacher, not an aerospace engineer. He knows the general principles of space flight and how Apollo was done (yes, it *was* done) but he could not be expected to cite every detail from memory. He is also at a disadvantage against a baiting opponent who uses the ever-popular Gish Gallop (constantly changing the subject faster than the other person can answer).
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ItalianoAmericano Yeah, on Earth, if one is driving a car, and goes too fast he can easily cause a fender-bender. And that is with a ROAD and breaks for tires to grip !!! Further, a THROTTLE-ABLE ROCKET PROPELLED craft had never been tested on Earth. The very first one was the LM for the Apollo 7 mission, in Oct 1968, during the administration of 33 rd degree Freemason LBJ ( who also had JFK murdered ), just days after James Webb resigned from NASA.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer There was no LM on Apollo 7; it was a CSM-only flight. Apollo 5 was an unmanned earth orbital test of the LM. It worked. Apollo 9 was a manned flight test in earth orbit, and Apollo 10 was a manned test in lunar orbit. So the LM was flight tested 3 times before Apollo 11.
If you don't even bother to check readily verifiable information like this, that doesn't say much for your commitment to the truth.
As for your rampant paranoia, I can only suggest psychiatric help.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
Wow... you know the facts AWR. Thanks for teaching Mooninquirer.
And about that demonstration of Newton's laws in action; my sons's teacher DOES show one of these clips in physics class. How about that??
Rob260259 7 months ago
@Rob260259 You didn't put your son's teacher up to it by any chance, did you?
One of the great things about space flight are all the educational opportunities it provides. Especially in physics, but other subjects too.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
Ghehe...:-)
No, in fact he's an ex engineer, he worked for ESA/ESTEC here in Holland as an assistant Industrial Costs Auditor I believe. But now he's old (LOL) and teaches young kids...
Rob260259 7 months ago
Yeah, and Newton's laws proves this is faked footage. This is an impossible motion, if it were done by rockets. I told my physics professor that we know scientific truths based on observation, and since we do not see the astronauts in 1/6 gravity of the moon, that should tell us there is something wrong with the theory. But he replied that the fact the astronauts clearly are not in 1/6 gravity should tell you that it is a hoax, and put your faith in science, and not the government.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer Dude you didn't ask a Physics teacher,you asked the Phys. Ed. teacher.
In this video they're not in 1/6 gravity, they're essentially in a free fall.
So let me ask you and your Phys. Ed. teacher this: Do you believe all of the Gemini, Apollo, Spaceshuttle, Skylab, Soyuz, Mir and International Spacestation EVAs' and docking maneuvers were fake also then?
Like Ricky Ricardo said: "Lucy you gotta allota explainin to do"
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead No, I asked my university physics professor that. This was for a two semester introductory calculus-based course in physics, and the most rigorous one offered, intended for physics, mathematics, and advanced engineering students. It used the textbook, "Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday & Resnick, which, importantly, had a whole chapter on gravity but NEVER mentions the moon landing. He also repeatedly said it was a hoax on his own accord. I do not dispute the other things.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer I think you should ask your university for a tuition refund because they are hiring obviously unqualified faculty. That is, if he really said what you claim he said and aren't simply making it up.
I didn't keep my copy of Halliday & Resnick from high school, but I don't doubt that Apollo wasn't mentioned because it was printed before the landings. However, we did discuss various Apollo physics in class and no one saw any reason to doubt its reality.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@Tweekerhead Don't undermine phys-ed teachers, or athletes. All one has to do is trust their own eyes and judgment. We do NOT see 1/6 gravity. One need not be a nerd or really into science to sense that something funny is going on. A football player asked my high school science teacher why we don't see evidence of them in 1/6 gravity. My teacher said very emphatically that he was not paid to be a propagandist for NASA, his job was to teach SCIENCE.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer Sounds like you have great teachers down there in the Ozarks.
I haven't heard of or met any physics teacher that said the Apollo was faked or couldn't have been done from an engineering standpoint, yours is the only one in the world.
God my man, your claims are based on fallacies, I can't help you. I hope you find the truth you desire.
And BTW, Collier made up allot of funny things as he went along.
Percy,the hair helmet overheated his brain into thinking he had real answers.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead Because Jack Crow was so bluntly honest, and would tell the truth, even if it seemed rude, including about the limitations of his OWN work, he had a rare and highly valued quality. He was awarded a grant from the NSA to found and direct the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, at Florida State, as opposed to MIT. He had many other positive qualities as well, and a very optimistic attitude about what technology can do. He loved research, but also loved teaching a great deal
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer Since when does the National Security Agency fund experimental work on magnetic physics?
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@mooninquirer "trust their own eyes and judgment". In other words, their intuition. That's a pretty succinct description of one of the most common fallacies among the hoaxhead crowd. Our human intuitions are based on the experience of living on the earth's surface, not in space or on other bodies where conditions are quite different. So unless one understands and properly applies the underlying physical principles to those places, their intuitions will lead them astray.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@mooninquirer Don't confuse your misunderstanding of Newton's laws with the real thing. There's nothing wrong with the motion depicted in this clip. In fact, it's an excellent demonstration of Newton's laws in action, and if I were teaching physics I'd consider using it (or similar clips) in class.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
This is an impossible motion in space. It was like a car parking. But there is no road in space, and you can't break. We don't see the rockets that would cause this almost jerking motion, with abrupt stopping, and even if there were rockets visible, there would be no abrupt changes in the motion.
This film was probably even labelled by NASA as an animation.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer An educated scientist interviewing a kid with nothing more than straw-man fallacies and non-sequitur logic. Why? Besides I don't know Phil Plait, I know a former astronaut tho, and he doesn't do interview for kids with annoying nasal voices.
BTW, if this film is hard for you to grasp, I can help. This film is sped up. And both crafts are in a free fall state, orbiting around Sun with the Earth and Moon at the same time. If you can't understand Newton's law, try Ernst Mach's law.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@mooninquirer
Are you really that ignorant or are you just playing a silly game?
receiver69 1 year ago
@ItalianoAmericano
"Docking in lunar orbit 6 times perfectly is questionable."
Exactly, why?
receiver69 1 year ago
@receiver69 Because it was extremely difficult to do this in LEO in the same time period, let alone trying to liftoff from another planet and trying to find, catch up and dock with the CSM on another planet orbit. It's very improbable to say the least.
ItalianoAmericano 1 year ago
@ItalianoAmericano
"a couple of years earlier"?
That was the first infant stage of development, they grew up in those few years.
Not such a stretch.
A bigger stretch is thinking the video you are looking at or the Apollo program was a fraud.
Only assholes think that.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@ItalianoAmericano It takes two days for the Shuttle to dock with the ISS because the Shuttle can only be launched from Florida and the ISS is in an established orbit about 190 miles up. It takes time for the trajectory of the shuttle to coincide with the ISS's orbit. The Command Module orbited at about 60 miles in an orbit designed to coincide with the LEM's trajectory - after all, prior to the landing, the LEM and the CSM were attached and in the same orbit. weren't they?
SteveG1963 1 year ago
The Apollo Lunar Modules launched one orbit after it's target. (LM meeting CSM in orbit) but that was the moon, with 2-hour orbital periods, nearly perfectly equatorial orbits, generally only two or three days after landing, and with the CSM doing "phasing" burns to keep flying over the landing site. This was one problem that Apollo would have faced had far longer missions been planned: the CSM would have needed a lot more fuel to keep "phasing" its orbit to stay in reach of the LM.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
npr. org/ player/ v2/media Player. html? action =1&t= 1&islist=f alse&id=1123242 16&m= 112324215
pt1gard 1 year ago
Stanley Kubrick does great work !.. "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "The Apollo Moon Landings".
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 Oh Dog.You poor boy..
That Kubrick thing came from a "mockumentary" called the "Dark Side of the Moon", it's also known as "Moon landings a Fake or Fact".
It's a spoof, a joke,a fake documentary. haven't you figured this out yet?
They edited Kissinger and Rumsfeld talking about Watergate and made it look like they were talking about the Moon landings.
This kinda' explains why you worship Ralph Rene.
If the Head of your snake is Kaysing and Rene, it's not hard to catch & kill it.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead
Oh poor troll... That "mockumentary" is what is known as HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT.
It's clearly the type of disinformation that you have absolutely no concept of.
You really are a tragic little dim witted parrot.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 Now which one are you, Beavis or Butthead?
It's disinformation all right.... It shows how gullible fools like you can be.
And you bought it at one time, only to find out it was a joke, and the joke was on you. No wonder you Hoaxtards are pissed, gettin' played like.
Kubrick ! Nixon! Oh My!
Keep propagating that Kubrick stuff, it reveals what you really are. A gullible scientifically lazy dolt.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... oh so clever beavis or butthead .... shill/trolls are always so keen witted .... hey pigeon, WHERE ARE THE GUYS WITH THE HOSES??? lmfao!!!!
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard You really are in your own little world, what are the guys with the hoses?
That's a remote reference that only you get I'm afraid.
Is your sky blue in your little world? Does it have the Rayleigh effect, or does it fluoresce ?
You're probably a super genius in your little world. You're doin' a heck of a job.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... shows how little you have studied the Moon .... what a dweeb .... ++++ you think this LEM really was in space???!!! LMFAO
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard When you type your funny words you show how little you know about science, physics and the Moon. You're just like Ralphy Rene, scientifically illiterate.
You really think that's a blue screen or a projected background?
Please stop deluding yourself. Whata' homunculus Nimrod.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... hey, dumbshit, do you need a degree in physics from MIT to know you cant tear duct tape (that wasnt even packed) with psi loaded gloves???
LMFAO
game set match--MEEEEE!!!
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard Man you really are saving me from the tide tyranny.
You know ..Shit Kicker.....You can't see the light of day livin' in your Mom's basement.
Games been over a long time Nimrod, you got owned, next.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... troll scum shilly on YT 24/7 LMFAO .... look at the tub of goo you think docked in space ... what a lame cointelpro bucket you truly are ....
hey, seen any dust on the LEMs landing cups??? LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
pt1gard 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead .... and answer this, minor league brain:
WHERE ARE THE GUYS WITH THE HOSES?
whats that you say, shilly, you cant???
you are overwhelmed by us
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard Shill parrot
You're beatin a dead horse man, sit down and shut up and let the grown -ups talk for a change.
You've had your ass handed to ya' so many times, you're to stupid to realize that you're making a fool outta' yourself. Aren't your arms tired from holding your ass this long?
BTW, Nimrod, ever notice that when they walk on the Moon the dust falls immediately to the ground WITHOUT AERATION? Only in a vacuum can that happen.
Ok, we're done here then, time to move on sport.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... do you know what shill even means??? I cant be a shill bc i know its a phony, you are the shill, dumbshit .... what a trailer park biscuit .... now go find the MEN WITH THE HOSES, DOOFUS
LMFAO
Um, check my moon loser vid, you might learn something ...
plus email me so i can destroy you on the radio debate :)
PT1GARD@AOL.COM
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard Shill, well...You're the only one around here sellin' something moron.
That's what a shill does! From the start when I saw you guys using that word I thought, do they see the irony in this? You're selling Kaysing, Rene's propaganda.
And yes in reality, you are the shill propagandist. If I were you I'd stop using that word, you make yourself look like a total fool.
I'll come on your little radio show, but you can't stick to the facts, you'll break down like you do here and freak out.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead .... come on the radio and be annihilated, cant wait ....
50 and a YT 24/7er, what a laugh
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard Debate...count me in...I wouldn't count on idiots like this troll though bro...he's like bambino...that guy was so owned he never came back again...lol
watch?v=J6DhY1NvmIc
You might as well bang your head on a wall brother, at least you'll have some lumps to show for it. These guys are weak incarnate!
un4g1v3n1 1 year ago
@un4g1v3n1 Oh man...I really want to come on your little radio show, I will destroy you on this matter, the facts just aren't on your side. I wanna run over you both like a steam roller, and watch you both freak out like you do here, then all you have left is insults. Man you guys make me look like a mental giant..thanks
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@un4g1v3n1 I just saw your video interviewing Jarrah White.......really sad man, I didn;t realize that you guys are a bunch of kids. I wasn't really takin' you guys very seriously before ..but now! Damn! What are yous guys 18-19 years old? You should take down that interview vid' ..makes you look kinda' lame dude.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago 38
@Tweekerhead
I 'enjoyed' one too... I knew he is a noob, but this Un4 dude is one of the worst conspiracists I've seen. He's a self-absorbed fool thinking he is smarter than scientists, physicists and top engineers.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead Why don't you tell Phil Plait to interview Jarrah White ?
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead If it were so lame, then why don't YOU debate Jarrah White, in real time, with audio. You can't hide behind one liners and rude comments, like you can in these short comment boxes. Why doesn't Phil Plait debate JW, or, for that matter, why doesn't ANY person who calls himself a scientist do that ? So many of my science teachers and professors have said either it was a hoax or something like, " I am not here to be a propagandist for NASA; I am here to teach you SCIENCE ! "
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer I would rather have LukeQuixoteSanJose debate for me he is a physics teacher.
Jarrah's arguments are based on strawman fallacies. I have nothing to prove to you or myself.
I know for a fact the landings were real.
Phil Plait I believe is an astronomer not a physicist.
Jarrah was asked to give his V Allen findings to academics for review and he got real quiet, He's the one hiding from debate and scrutiny.
Now answer my Question, were all the EVAs and docking maneuvers fake also?
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead I do not dispute the other space missions, although I doubt docking maneuvers took place in space. I dispute Apollo 7 onward. The Space Shuttle was legitimate. Now, my English teacher, who had a Ph.D., and was VERY no-nonsense, allowed us to watch on TV the landing of the first space shuttle. That was the ONLY time he allowed us to watch TV. But I asked him why was it such a big deal, because it was nothing compared to the moon missions. He said they didn't happen
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead That sounds like a made up name, but I will check out "Luke Quixote." Well, I know for a fact that they did NOT occur, not just because I would rather trust great men who were actually scientists, as opposed to the government and media, which has bogus news, and thinks that every detail of the boring OJ Simpson trial is real important news. The astronauts themselves refuse to swear under oath that it happened, and get very angry and/or nervous when asked.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer Clic and paste, you know what to do: user/lukequixotesanjose
Very informative, if you like real facts based on real science.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@mooninquirer ... MI, these sock puppets have been invited by me and given my email 100xs to come on radio shows i set up on rbn and oracle and yet not a one has ever come on to share their POVs, interesting eh??? yet they will troll here forever and claim they dont have time to come on the radio face to face so to speak ... I have got Dr K and Mike Herzog to invite Jarrah and Rick and myself on the radio several times and never has one of these lying trolls called in--ZERO!!!
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard Call LukeQuixoteSanJose he'll totally hurricane you.
Nobody wants to play with you on the radio cuz' they know you'll be reduced to the personal attack fallacies you rely on here in these forums. Besides your arguments and claims are based on fiction, just another waste of time. Read a book.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... pussy like all the rest, retreat, whats the diff betwen this and the radio?? NOTHING, just like you
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard I'll demolish any fallacies you spew, you know that Tard'.
You especially show traits of adolescent egocentrism, anybody threatens your belief system, you go spastic just stalker, unforgiven, realdrummer and nasafakedit etc. etc.
I just got into this little hoax fray recently, I can already see the weakest links in the chain, you.
Funny if the hoax was real it would require NASA to be inept and brilliant at the same time.
Which is it?
But you won't answer any of my questions,you can't.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... put it where it counts, message me at pt1gard@aol.com, when I set up our next moon show you will be first apollogist shill that ever came on and was destroyed .... you wont, you live on YT yet say you dont have time to debate to bigger audience LIVE ..... lmfao, scum bucket .... any idea where the guys with the hoses are or how duct tape sticks at 500 degree swings on the fake moon????
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard The Moon is fake ! And you say it swings 500 degrees to!
What...It's on some kinda' pendulum? You wanna' destroy me on a show ? What ....you gonna' kill me with stupidity?
Please don't destroy me with stupidity, stalker almost did last night.
See people this is what happens when cousins marry.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... you absolute dumb shit, how about the temp changes VERY MUCH ... can you comprehend that lil mind??? LMFAO
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard 's To stupid to realize he's making a fool of himself. Ego means more that truth to him. Can't except facts or reality and is obviously poorly educated.
Call the National Center for Learning Disabilities, it's the one thing with National in the title people like can trust.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... that would be "too" stupid, tweaky, lmfao ... hey, kinda funny nasa lost all their moon tapes :)
pt1gard 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead
You're damn right. Ever heard of the CIA? These idiots are prime members.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead
Uh.. CIA=Conspiracy Idiots Alliance
Rob260259 1 year ago
@pt1gard
Are you still organizing those muppet shows? Get real. No one is going to 'discuss' this idiocy about a moonhoax conspiracy with you hoaxheads. Something like a TV show on "why water is wet" thing... LOL
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 ... but you will come on here and troll 24/7, oh i get it, LMFAO
pt1gard 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead
Go watch his latest show. The guy is nuts... I hope the nurses check his chains regularly.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead .... about the dust, they slow down the film and play tricks, shilly .... gawd do you ever leave the computer??? lmao
hey how bout the nauts not even knowing they went thru the Van Allen Belts
LMFAO... HYSTERICAL HUH?????
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard Dust... Even if you slow down the film here on Earth, dust will not behave the way it does in the Apollo films, THERE'S NO AERATION OF THE LUNAR DUST IN THE FILMS ....FACT Of course you'll put the blinders on and say, they slowed the film down. Still no AERATION of the dust.
Game over. Enjoy the verbal spanking?
Crap ..why am I talking to this idiot? Next.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... you proved only that you duck all my questions, your dust is not even a topic bc it denotes nothing .... hey, why cant the nauts agree if they can see stars???
simple question, yet you will duck it!!!!
LMFAO :)
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard No you're ducking my questions, and the DUST is a real issue, a revealing one at that, but you don't want to talk about the dust. And it's obvious why you don't. You can't explain that issue away to fit your argument.
Stars, how could you see stars with 24k gold plated visor. It would be like trying to see stars from Earth with a welder's mask on.
Or In your case trying to see the truth in your little world from your Mom's basement. LOL This like being the smartest kid in class.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... your dust is BS nothing!!! .... LMFAO on the gold visor, that was seen tipped up more than once so they woulda gone blind etc ... also, one naut said the stars were brilliant .... gawd what a zemmi .... you amuse me, esp. for being a fossil at 50!!!!!!
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard Wrong again.... The dust is everything! Dust does not behave that was on Earth! Looks I found your Achilles heal on that one. Try to explain it away moron. The dust doesn't aerate when it's kicked up on the Moon...FACT ..
sorry shilly
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... they can fake anything, doofus .... Just like the petrified wood the nauts gave to the Dutch Prime Minister LMFAO .... google this, folks: Moon Rock Is Really Just Petrified Wood
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard You're ducking my question Nimrod.
The dust is a revealing issue you guys can't explain away, and you're running away from it like a cat from water. Really funny.
Change the subject...quick...LOLOL
Man you make me happy, I feel like a genius compared to you. I wish you'd move to my town.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... mr pedantic, cant you comprehend, I just told you its all faked on on a set in the usa... are you really that stupid?? answer is: YES!!! .... you duck EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MINE ... what a clown ... petrified wood given the PM by the liar Armstrong = LMFAO ... course he wept when facing students at a graduation years later when his manchurian cues were wearing off
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard Petrified wood,yes it was. As far as we know W Drees replaced it! Any moron could have seen it for what it was.
I have examined a rock brought back by Mr. Armstrong, it was a Moon rock,trust me. Why are you ducking my question about non-aerated dust on the Moon?
Can't explain it away eh'.
The LEM was made of aluminum with titanium fasteners, you're just seeing the Mylar. Did you really think they went up there in a sleeping bag made of canvas?
Wanna' talk about Ralph Rene ?
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead
"I have examined a rock brought back by Mr. Armstrong, it was a Moon rock,trust me."
TOO FUNNY!! .. Not only are you a clueless little parrot, but you're also quite delusional.
It doesn't matter which American fraudster passed off the petrifed wood as being a "moon" rock during the A11 Goodwill Tour .. It was still as FAKE as the "moon" landings were.
Speaking of fraudsters, Nixon was not only in on the Apollo fraud, but he was also involved in the JFK assassination.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 Oh, I examined a rock brought back by Armstrong, no matter what you say, facts are facts. You can believe it.
Why don't you Einsteins bring some facts to the table?
Let's go back to the head of the snake, Rene.
Here's an equation F=Gm1m2r/r
Prove this wrong like Rene thought he did.
This outta be good, like a monkey fuckin a football.
Have at it Nimrod.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead lmfao,. you examined a kidney stone maybe ... you dont even know where the guys are with the hoses ....
see you think its about math and science, that dont mean shit, bluff boy .... the belts, the punctured space suits, the gold visors down, the C rock, the reflection of a non naut in a visor, nauts being tugged by visible wires and defying laws of motion, grissom & baron being offed ... you are a flunky, nasa is run by nazis like von braun ... who do you think you are talking to?
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard More ramblings? You're clutching for straw.
It is about simple math, the numbers don't lie, the Apollo footage is perfect for analysis. You can do what you want to the playback speed, the gravitational acceleration can be detected.
Now again..Let's go back to the head of your snake.
Rene claim this was wrong, F=Gm1m2r/r3 Can you tell us why he thought it was wrong, and/or why it's still correct and Rene never really un-proved this simple Newtonian equation? But you probably can't.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@pt1gard
41 years and counting... Most people are smart enough to believe reputable scientists, engineers, geochemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers and astronauts from across the globe who state that the moonlandings are a fact. Only delusional self-absorbed fools shout "fake!" and base their 'proof' on anonymous high-school dropouts and 'twooffinders' who found everything they needed to conclude the Apollo program was a hoax from some distorted YouTube videos.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 I think I figured it out Rob.....The Lunar Lander looks like a porta' toilet to the hoaxers, if it had looked like a Clingon Bird of Prey they would've been content with the Apollo program. Hoaxers' don't like the Mylar insulation covering the aluminum shell of the LEM.
PS. That was allota' fun yesterday, fun to taunt kids eh'.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... hey could those Hassle cams take pics of stars or not?
yes or no?
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard You mean Hasselblad ? Are you the Hoaxtard that said it was a Hassabald? ..No that was stalker, not very bright guy.
To answer your question, yes if you point away from the sun and the albedo of the Moon's regolith and set the exposure correctly, yes. But if your taking a pic' of an astronaut in a white suit while pointing towards the surface of the Moon, I would think maybe the exposure would be fast to detect stars. That's a pretty obvious answer wouldn't you say.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... hey doofus, so ur saying its impossible to take pics on moon of stars???
they took a pic a minute yanno .... also when did they attach and detach cam when crawling in and out of the cramped LEM ... also why wont nasa let people measure the LEM inside quarters anymore??
TRUTH DOES NOT FEAR INVESTIGATION!!!!!!!!!!
gawd, what a shill
game set match for the 100th time
LMFAO
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard Doofus? You always address your intellectual superiors as doofus?
Your counter point is contrived as usual, still parroting the same old tired ass shill strawman hoax propaganda. Can't you come up with anything new?
Now answer my question if you can, other wise shut up and let the grown ups talk.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... shilly on 24/7 again ... you ever get laid?
TRUTH DOES NOT FEAR INVESTIGATION unless its the nasa nazis ala the holocaust and LEMS
LMFAO
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard Please stop proselytizing me, or sorry...Stop hitting on me, I told you I'm not gay. It's cool that you are, obvious to see with your propensity for penises and Jarrah.
Seriously it's cool that your gay, but please stop sending me these messages about getting laid.
I'm married, of course I don't get laid.
Now STFU answer my questions ...Do it. Or run away and hide.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... umm where did i evern mention a "tool" must be your fixation ... my point is im sure you dont get any female ass... since you wont address other things, interesting you do this LMFAO
TRUTH DOES NOT FEAR INVESTIGATION
why wont nasa allow the LEM to be measured every again????
DUCK AND JIVE, SHILLY
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard
Still not gonna answer MY questions eh'..You're not the sharpest "tool" in the box are ya'..
Can't answer my simple question after I answered yours. ...I thought you were a chicken shit...
Now go away stop bothering me unless you have something that interests me.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... you havent answered shit ... check the vid i sent you SHILLY
LMFAO
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard You can't answer shit, It's you who has to prove the landings were fake, not the other way around.
Get outta' your mom's basement dude..this is starting to get sad...get a life.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@pt1gard
Answer this:
"To date Jarrah has failed to produce even a single qualified expert who agrees with Jarrah's conclusion that the Apollo missions must have been faked."
Who said it? Must have been some 'Nasa shill' ofcourse.
LOL
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 You'rew full of shit.... simple period .
Hhahhahahahahahahahahahahhaahah
Whata' joke. so funny ya'all, after a few beers...it's even funnier
Vaca sagrada los hombres tiene bull shit
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Rob260259 Sorry Rob ..not you full of it......lol You know what I mean, this new browser's got me messed up.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@pt1gard
Getting hurricaned again, are you Pt1tard?
Rob260259 1 year ago
@pt1gard Yeah, very good point. Jim Collier makes that point in WAS IT ONLY A PAPER MOON, and David Percy makes a similar point in WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MOON. ( google those words in all capitals letters to see those videos )
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer .. thanks my man, seen both of those, great stuff, if you message me i have a lot of mp3s on moon interviews ill email... take care
pt1gard 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... hey shilly, why wont nasa allow joe pub to measure the LEM anymore like Jim Collier did??? LMFAO
truth does not fear inveestigation
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard I saw Jim Collier the other day, he's math is all wrong and he made it up as he went along. You think GPS cell phones are fake? CD players fake? Harrier jet fake?
Now here's a question you can duck, actually 2 non related, 1st. Can you show how Rene was wrong or right about Newton's 1st law?
2nd. How much decompression and compression can a human withstand, and how much pressure was used in the Lunar Module when it was on the Moon?
Duck and hide now...run away.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead hey arent you the shill who has a moon rock too ... you met jim huh, have you hand jobbed neil also??
why wont they allow anyone to measure the LEM
you duck it all ... i only answer things I can see, not math .... not interested in your fictional number or thrust ... we can prove my things easily, yours are conjecture ...
TRUTH DOES NOT FEAR INVESTIGATION
SO why does nasa not allow measuring anymore????
LMFAO
you are toast
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard You've made a fool outta' yourself so many times , and you don't even realize it.
You've been owned and you aint aware of it, ignorance is bliss. Game set match ....lololol Are you 14 yrs. old? Really are you 14 ? You're in your own little world kid, go away...I aint' got time to teach the mentally handicapped.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ... shilly go here "Apollo Moon Hoax Investigation pt 5" scroll to 7:15 and explain your naughty lying ass nasa self
LMFAO
this is a classic proof that apollo was faked!!!!
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard Won't allow anyone to measure the LM -- WTF are you talking about? The plans (with dimensions) are on the NASA technical reports server. You can see several live specimens in the flesh at museums and look at them and take pictures till your heart's content.
Just because the museum staff won't let you bust up their priceless historical artifact doesn't mean NASA is holding any deep dark secrets.
ApolloWasReal 9 months ago
@Rob260259 OK, name those "reputable" scientists ! It is the other way around ----- scientists do not want to embarrass themselves by claiming the moon landing happened, because THEN they have to explain the physics of it, and they can't, because it contradicts the laws of physics. It really is embarrassing for a scientist to do what Phil Plait does --- and he was paid to make a fool of himself. Those with professorships do not need to be a propagandist for NASA, and say it is a hoax.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer
Ever heard of Orbital Mechanics? The speed of an orbit is related to its altitude. The higher you are the slower your orbital period. To catch up the LM need only drop into a slightly lower orbit, then raise its altitude to meet the CSM. Once they are a within a few feet they can close the gap by making minor adjustments to their speed with a RCS thrusters. Remember that orbital rendezvous is done regularly in Earth orbit, where the orbiting objects are doing about 17,500mph.
Rob260259 1 year ago 19
@mooninquirer
Name those scientists? All of them? Are you mad? Here are three very reputable:
- Dr Trevor Walker (Astrophysicist)
- Dr Karl Kruszelnicki (physicist)
- Dr Chriet Titulaer (Astronomer)
Now you name three reputable scientists that agree with your ridiculous claim.
No, it's not the other way around. Obviously you know NOTHING about scientists and the research they do. If anyone would be able to prove a hoax, he would be famous.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 No, the scientist would NOT be famous, because the media would refuse to publish his statement. Teachers and professors, of NECESSITY, say either that the moon landing was a hoax, or imply it very strongly, by very emphatically singling out the moon landing as UNIQUELY the one thing that they will REFUSE to discuss the physics of. I have NOTHING to prove to YOU. I only ask the public that they ask THEIR science teachers, and see for themselves.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer
"because the media would refuse to publish his statement"
How do you know? I know various media who want to publish all about scams and illegal matter. And you know them, too, I know for sure. Your statement doesn't hold water.
Talking about science teachers... I have asked some. One of them says you are a fool. I don't agree with him. You're worse.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 Oh really ? Then help us out here. You can start with the mainstream media giving a voice to Dr. Peter Duesberg, et al., to expose the HIV = AIDS hoax. I have tried to get science journalists to expose this, but they cannot, because their editors refuse. The same thing is true for that phony debate over the mosque at ground zero --- in which the media lost A LOT of the public's attrention. The media wouldn't even consider that 911 was an inside job.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer Ever consider the reason that you can't get science journalists to "expose the HIV = AIDS hoax" might be because your premise is wrong? As far as 911 being an inside job, I'd say a lot of people have considered whether it was an inside job. Considered and rejected. Now as for Bush/Cheney *exploiting* 9/11 to the hilt, that's a different story with plenty of support. Why isn't that one enough for you?
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal Incorrect, because the media have REALLY lost a huge amount of readership and TV viewers with their constant reporting of the mosque at ground zero and the Quran burning by that Christian pastor ( who himself did not show any anger toward Islam, and didn't seem to care about the issue ). The general public didn't give a rat's ass one way or the other, especially about the mosque at ground zero, and was sick of the media attention. The purpose of the media is NOT to make money
mooninquirer 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal Actually, Bush did NOT exploit 911 to the hilt, because Obama did NOT change policy, and neither did the Democrats who gained control of Congress in 2006 over anger of the wars, and falsely blaming them on Bush. If it were just Bush, then the wars would have ended immediately upon Obama becoming president. These wars are wars for ISRAEL, and the ONLY person the mainstream media had on to discuss this was David Duke, so as to discredit the notion.
mooninquirer 7 months ago
@mooninquirer And David Duke also PROUDLY brought up his KKK past, as the media knew he would. The impression the media gave by ONLY having David Duke on air, was that " only a White supremacist, misogynist homophobic, hate filled man would ever believe the Israel Lobby even exists." They would not DARE to put on air John Mearsheimer, who is a perfect gentleman. Indeed, no American magazine published the Mearsheimer & Walt essay, and it was published in the LONDON Review of Books
mooninquirer 7 months ago
@mooninquirer You seem not to understand "causality", the basic principle that if B happens after A, then B cannot have caused A. 9/11 happened on 9/11/2001. Bush invaded Afghanistan about a month later, and in the spring of 2003 he invaded Iraq on the pretext that they had been involved with al Qaeda prior to 9/11. Obama's election in 11/2008 could not have caused events in 2001-2003. But all became clear when you brought up Israel: