Apollo 11: Did we goto the moon?

[ExperimentalSEO]

But you do need the processing power to keep 3 men alive in a capusle lol

They would use people to manually calculate things back in the 1950s and 1960s
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/a-lifetime-of-stem.html

 

[patriotnews]

Regardless of how many times you are bending steel... you still have to have an accelerant to produce the kind of heat necessary to melt steel and jet fuel just wont do that... there was nothing in the building that would cause something to shear off at a 45 at ground level.. nothing

Aluminum. *Cough*

You mean the rubble of a collapsed building hit by a plane? Not "at ground level", what was at "ground level" used to NOT be "ground level" before the building came down, what used to be at "ground level" was now in the basement or "below ground".

 

[Heromrk18]

Aluminum. *Cough*

You mean the rubble of a collapsed building hit by a plane? Not "at ground level", what was at "ground level" used to NOT be "ground level" before the building came down, what used to be at "ground level" was now in the basement or "below ground".

lol im just saying.. it was false flag operation and thats that. lol... pffffftttttttt

 

[patriotnews]

lol im just saying.. it was false flag operation and thats that. lol... pffffftttttttt

It was reptilian aliens in fleshy human suits on orders from the Nordic aliens under control of the "Greys", who are controlled by Keanu Reeves(I mean that guy don't age, something is going on there), who is 2nd in command to Nick Cage(look it up, homeboy is a time traveler or has lived forever).
I have equal evidence that what I said is equal fact and that's that. Lol... Pfffffffttttttt.

 

[klique]

I picked out the easiest falsehood. If you miss a basic FACT like the 50th anniversary isn't until NEXT year, because headlines, than your basic ability to process advanced facts is pretty simple to ascertain... So, yes, I pointed out a blatant falsehood, an easily pointed out one. One that is ALL over clickbait titles and articles, but skips that FACT that the anniversary is next year...
It didn't require more than 10-15? So, how did we get the capsules falling back to earth? Oh, they just circled in low orbit? So, it was all pre-filmed... So those 3 guys that have stood by their stories, some ground crew that had to secretly monitor the guys in low orbit flight, the film crew, the editing crew, the set build(and disposal). Wow this is building up in people fast!
Please back up your claim that nasa admitted faking "some of" the video. Sorry, but you made a claim easily debunked already, so I'll need a citation to this claim before it is addressed.

I don't care if you choose to address what I'm saying or not, because you're purposely picking and choosing which points to address.. the pointsecond that aren't that strong. But like most people who believe we went to the moon, ignore the parts that you can't debunk. Typical.

Explain why the LEM has no moon dust on it, despite when it was coming down on the moon you can see the moon dust floating all over the place.. to the point that it covers the screen to where you can barely see the LEM coming down for a few seconds. The astronaut says as they're descending, clearly over the radio were kicking up a lot of dust. But yet when you look at the LEM after its landed, there's not a speck of dust on it. It's squeaky clean as if it's been thru a car wash. The landing caps on the legs of the LEM are in a cup shape.. sort of like a plate with a lip.. so surely, even if the dust didn't stick to the LEM.. there would still be moon debri in those landing caps. There's nothing at all, it looks brand new.. the same way it looked when it was on earth. Explain that.. Not even NASA can explain that.. anytime faced with it, they do what I'm sure you'll do which is divert away from the question. No one can explain it, because it doesn't make any sense.. which in turn proves that either soon of the footage was faked, or we never went. I can guarantee you won't and can't answer it and will come up with an excuse for not answering it. It's ok, I once believed we went there too.. then when evidence starts getting to the point that even the experts don't have an answer for it, and make excuses and divert away from the point and question.. that's when I realized something wasn't right. Don't worry, take your time.. I'll wait.

 

[patriotnews]

I don't care if you choose to address what I'm saying or not, because you're purposely picking and choosing which points to address.. the pointsecond that aren't that strong. But like most people who believe we went to the moon, ignore the parts that you can't debunk. Typical.

Explain why the LEM has no moon dust on it, despite when it was coming down on the moon you can see the moon dust floating all over the place.. to the point that it covers the screen to where you can barely see the LEM coming down for a few seconds. The astronaut says as they're descending, clearly over the radio were kicking up a lot of dust. But yet when you look at the LEM after its landed, there's not a speck of dust on it. It's squeaky clean as if it's been thru a car wash. The landing caps on the legs of the LEM are in a cup shape.. sort of like a plate with a lip.. so surely, even if the dust didn't stick to the LEM.. there would still be moon debri in those landing caps. There's nothing at all, it looks brand new.. the same way it looked when it was on earth. Explain that.. Not even NASA can explain that.. anytime faced with it, they do what I'm sure you'll do which is divert away from the question. No one can explain it, because it doesn't make any sense.. which in turn proves that either soon of the footage was faked, or we never went. I can guarantee you won't and can't answer it and will come up with an excuse for not answering it. It's ok, I once believed we went there too.. then when evidence starts getting to the point that even the experts don't have an answer for it, and make excuses and divert away from the point and question.. that's when I realized something wasn't right. Don't worry, take your time.. I'll wait.

You're expecting dust and such to work identically to the way it does on Earth. Both in how it settles, how it clings and everything.
Ever played in sand? It doesn't "cling" to slanted metal onjects, here on Earth. So, sure it would.
OH, you were thinking "dust" like in your house? Or in a room no one has entered for years? Yeah, think more like sand. It's ok.

Those are my best guesses, since I haven't been to space.
Funny enough, my answer is fair, practical AND rational. As to you essentially saying "here is something I don't understand, and have watched lots of YouTube videos, MUST be fake."
You're trying to act like you know something, it is funny to watch.

Sorry, don't see where you backed up your earlier claim? I mean you went on this long diatribe about how I would ignore or redirect, and you completely ignored then redirected your response. Now, care to givee the same courtesy?

And yes, I did point out a blatant LIE that is plucked from clickbait headlines, that you're grasping onto a "proof" but it is an obvious lie, since we're not time travelers... Lol. I mean, when you can present a clear FACT that it has not been 50yrs, and he in FACT did not miss the anniversary celebration, then go with FACTs, because neither of us are moon experts, I'm using rational deduction, you're whatever it is you're doing to debate. So a FACT is a simple thing to point out as a rational reason to question the remainder of your knowledge or "research" since you're blatantly wrong on a simple fact upon which is VERY important to your entire theory...did we go to the moon in 1969?

 

[derekxec]

I think it was real and to those asking why haven't we gone back? Why would we go back? There is nothing that would make us want to go back. You can't really do anything useful there.

 

[Deleted member 120847]

nah

 

[ExperimentalSEO]

Even without the shielding, the total amount of radiation of going through the Van Allen Belt is a fraction of what OSHA allows.

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdf

 

[klique]

You're expecting dust and such to work identically to the way it does on Earth. Both in how it settles, how it clings and everything.
Ever played in sand? It doesn't "cling" to slanted metal onjects, here on Earth. So, sure it would.
OH, you were thinking "dust" like in your house? Or in a room no one has entered for years? Yeah, think more like sand. It's ok.

Those are my best guesses, since I haven't been to space.
Funny enough, my answer is fair, practical AND rational. As to you essentially saying "here is something I don't understand, and have watched lots of YouTube videos, MUST be fake."
You're trying to act like you know something, it is funny to watch.

Sorry, don't see where you backed up your earlier claim? I mean you went on this long diatribe about how I would ignore or redirect, and you completely ignored then redirected your response. Now, care to givee the same courtesy?

And yes, I did point out a blatant LIE that is plucked from clickbait headlines, that you're grasping onto a "proof" but it is an obvious lie, since we're not time travelers... Lol. I mean, when you can present a clear FACT that it has not been 50yrs, and he in FACT did not miss the anniversary celebration, then go with FACTs, because neither of us are moon experts, I'm using rational deduction, you're whatever it is you're doing to debate. So a FACT is a simple thing to point out as a rational reason to question the remainder of your knowledge or "research" since you're blatantly wrong on a simple fact upon which is VERY important to your entire theory...did we go to the moon in 1969?

What did I cling onto as proof? You're either slow, or you're just trying to hard to be right. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing.. I said, if I went to the moon.. I wouldn't want it to say those headlines if you looked up my name. Never once did I say that was the reason I believed we didn't go. Never once did I say, the videos on YouTube prove we didn't go to the moon.. that's just you trying to say anything because you don't have a valid point. It's almost like speaking to a child.. let's make up fake accusations, and hope people believe that's what he said. Well everything I said is in black and white.

At the end of the day, I never said we didn't go to the moon definitively. I said we either didn't go to the moon when and how we said we did, or we didn't go. You're like the king of twisting words to go with what you want them to say. One thing you're right about, neither one of us are moon experts. I didn't write this thread to try and be a know it all, or to say any of what I believe is fact. Everything I've said in this thread, is all opinion based.. which I'm entitled to. I'm not here saying "everything you're saying is bs".. or "the stuff your saying is made up bs from google" .. as you've never stated your sources of information and at the end of the day it's opinion based. If you're used to debating this type of stuff, you know neither side will agree or change opinions to what the other thinks.. so trying to come across as a know it all, or as everything you're saying is right does nothing for the conversation.. it actually makes one not want to debate with you.

As for your answer to my question, I'm more than aware how moon dust is. They've done many tests with moon dust, you can even buy exact replica of it online. It's obvious it's not going to react how it would on earth, there is no air or atmosphere on the moon.. but based on the video evidence of the moon dust fluttering around during the decent, some of it would of landed in the landing caps as there were 4 of them.. and the stuff was blistering all over the place as you can see it clearly on the video. It's evident how moon dust falls in the video of them driving around in the lunar rover on the moon. You can get a more than accurate view of how it falls. There would of been some in the landing caps, that's it. So either the pictures were faked for whatever reason, they took it thru the car wash, or we didn't go. Which of the 3 it was, I don't know.. I just know facts, and that's one fact that NASA cant and wont answer... because they can't. There is no answer to it, because it doesn't add up. And most people who think we went to the moon, do exactly what you did.. try and come off like they know everything, and that they're spewing out pure facts.. but then when faced with a discrepancy like which I pointed out, have NO ANSWER and revert back to trying to discredit the person pointing out the discrepancy and stay far away from the point that if what was shown in the video and heard on the audio was authentic then what we see in the end with the dust free LEM doesn't match up.

 

[patriotnews]

What did I cling onto as proof? You're either slow, or you're just trying to hard to be right. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing.. I said, if I went to the moon.. I wouldn't want it to say those headlines if you looked up my name. Never once did I say that was the reason I believed we didn't go. Never once did I say, the videos on YouTube prove we didn't go to the moon.. that's just you trying to say anything because you don't have a valid point. It's almost like speaking to a child.. let's make up fake accusations, and hope people believe that's what he said. Well everything I said is in black and white.

At the end of the day, I never said we didn't go to the moon definitively. I said we either didn't go to the moon when and how we said we did, or we didn't go. You're like the king of twisting words to go with what you want them to say. One thing you're right about, neither one of us are moon experts. I didn't write this thread to try and be a know it all, or to say any of what I believe is fact. Everything I've said in this thread, is all opinion based.. which I'm entitled to. I'm not here saying "everything you're saying is bs".. or "the stuff your saying is made up bs from google" .. as you've never stated your sources of information and at the end of the day it's opinion based. If you're used to debating this type of stuff, you know neither side will agree or change opinions to what the other thinks.. so trying to come across as a know it all, or as everything you're saying is right does nothing for the conversation.. it actually makes one not want to debate with you.

As for your answer to my question, I'm more than aware how moon dust is. They've done many tests with moon dust, you can even buy exact replica of it online. It's obvious it's not going to react how it would on earth, there is no air or atmosphere on the moon.. but based on the video evidence of the moon dust fluttering around during the decent, some of it would of landed in the landing caps as there were 4 of them.. and the stuff was blistering all over the place as you can see it clearly on the video. It's evident how moon dust falls in the video of them driving around in the lunar rover on the moon. You can get a more than accurate view of how it falls. There would of been some in the landing caps, that's it. So either the pictures were faked for whatever reason, they took it thru the car wash, or we didn't go. Which of the 3 it was, I don't know.. I just know facts, and that's one fact that NASA cant and wont answer... because they can't. There is no answer to it, because it doesn't add up. And most people who think we went to the moon, do exactly what you did.. try and come off like they know everything, and that they're spewing out pure facts.. but then when faced with a discrepancy like which I pointed out, have NO ANSWER and revert back to trying to discredit the person pointing out the discrepancy and stay far away from the point that if what was shown in the video and heard on the audio was authentic then what we see in the end with the dust free LEM doesn't match up.

So, you can't cite your claim? Got it. Didn't need so many words to say that. Ok, got it. Simple.

And it hasn't been 50yrs, so unless you're a time traveler or predicting the future, that initial claim, the easiest to disprove is still fake. Still the easiest to show you're poorly researching... Still holds true.

Let me know when you can come your claim like I asked, no rambling

 

[klique]

So, you can't cite your claim? Got it. Didn't need so many words to say that. Ok, got it. Simple.

And it hasn't been 50yrs, so unless you're a time traveler or predicting the future, that initial claim, the easiest to disprove is still fake. Still the easiest to show you're poorly researching... Still holds true.

Let me know when you can come your claim like I asked, no rambling

What claim are you talking about? As I predicted, diverting away from a fact that has yet to be debunked. I called it. Anyway, I'm done entertaining your attempts to twist words around to benefit your reply and your ability to dodge facts when put in your face. Enjoy your evening patriot.

 

[Maverick1111]

No, but we will soon.

 

[patriotnews]

Even without the shielding, the total amount of radiation of going through the Van Allen Belt is a fraction of what OSHA allows.

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdf

WHAT! But the one guy said it would kill us essentially instantly, along with an MRI! Psh

What claim are you talking about? As I predicted, diverting away from a fact that has yet to be debunked. I called it. Anyway, I'm done entertaining your attempts to twist words around to benefit your reply and your ability to dodge facts when put in your face. Enjoy your evening patriot.

I answered your question, you have yet to acknowledge mine and just rant/ramble.
Lmao! "Facts"... Thanks for the laugh. See my lizard alien reply for equal "facts"

 

[klique]

WHAT! But the one guy said it would kill us essentially instantly, along with an MRI! Psh

I answered your question, you have yet to acknowledge mine and just rant/ramble.
Lmao! "Facts"... Thanks for the laugh. See my lizard alien reply for equal "facts"

You actually believe the amount of radiation that is in the belts is less than humans are allowed? You're more dense than I thought.. especially for someone who trys to speak so much "facts". Go look up how much radiation comes from the belts, and how much is given off during a xray. Then do the math to how much you would need to be shielded for going thru them for 2 hours. NASA had already said and is actively saying they need to come with new technology to protect the astronauts thru going thru these radiation belts.. so whatever is convincing you that you can travel thru them without shielding has you poorly misinformed. Just the fact that you actually believe that, shows me you really don't know what you're speaking about.

 

[Stavro]

As for the footage, they've already admitted that some of the footage was fake that was released to the public AFYER people pointed out inconsistencies in a lot of what they claimed was live.

Do you have an official citation for that? I've heard lots of claims, but nobody has ever offered a first-hand source.

The people behind the theory say that it was compartmentalized. As in, only 10-15 people actually knew.. the rest of the people did think we went.

There were twenty four astronauts who reached the moon, and that's not counting the number of people who would be handling preparation of the site, building the earth-side equipment, etc. So how could that knowledge be restricted to ~15 people?

If the compartmentalization was so great at the time, then how did the Soviets manage to steal the blueprints to the space shuttle and build several duplicates?

 

[Mediawiz]

What is the point of sending to moon and going to moon when we can not live there? I saw some planet like earth discovery few days ago.. Tell our Musk bro to put attention there...

Yeah, about 45 light years away. And light travels with 300.000 km/sec.. Good luck

 

[wacrofo]

Well while we are on the topic of hoaxes and to refrain from creating my own thread about this lol... explain to me this

Jet Fuel burns at 800-1500 degrees F
Steel melts at 2750 degrees F

So explain to me how this happened

Know what can melt steel?

When ignited, Thermite produces very high temperatures (over 4,000 degrees F), along with generous amounts of molten metal. Thermite is typically very difficult to ignite, requiring atemperature of over 3,000 degrees F just to get the reaction started.

Bro I have an engineering degree in metallurgy. and I can tell you that steel will be like a jelly in the temperature of fuel ignition
watch this :

 

[Gogol]

Mythbusters debunked those hoaxes a long time ago lol. I don't live in USA so I am not being patriotic.. but.. human being did go to moon in '69 IMHO.

 

[patriotnews]

You actually believe the amount of radiation that is in the belts is less than humans are allowed? You're more dense than I thought.. especially for someone who trys to speak so much "facts". Go look up how much radiation comes from the belts, and how much is given off during a xray. Then do the math to how much you would need to be shielded for going thru them for 2 hours. NASA had already said and is actively saying they need to come with new technology to protect the astronauts thru going thru these radiation belts.. so whatever is convincing you that you can travel thru them without shielding has you poorly misinformed. Just the fact that you actually believe that, shows me you really don't know what you're speaking about.

A lot of claims and rambling, but still not backing up an original claim as asked, then making more claims without citation...
Lol