How many believe the moon landing was...

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good afternoon my friends: Bull you posted -->

Don, I'll spell it out for you since you obviously don't get it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't?
*****************************************************************************************************
You also posted -->

they did this repeatedly, yet none of them have shown any serious side effects that even N.A.S.A. says they should expect to see ? I guess their just really lucky
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So the effect of such a dose, in the end, ->

' would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill.' <= The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of '1 in 1000' per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip.

Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts -> (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) <- you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.

****************************************************************************************************

You posted -->

But even so they were out of view for significant periods of time as they supposedly rounded the moon before taking a earth borne trajectory. So saying they were under constant scrutiny as they returned is wrong and not a valid support of your conspiracy theory that the Apollo missions actually landed a man or 27 of them on the Moon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I posted in reply -->

As for my friend Bull mentioning that the Lander docked then the Orbiter made the orbits necessary before setting out on the return trip is quite correct. I didn't believe that it was necessary to explain this in detail since what I was pointing out was simply that there was no other space craft, since the world would have easily detected it.

******************************************************************************************************

You also posted-->

While we spent millions developing a pen that allowed astronauts to write in a zero gravity environment, the Ruskies used pencils.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So a simple, effective way was found, so it may well be that in the future, a means to shield or neutralize Space radiation or it's effects, may equally be simple.

I remember as a pilot, we were shown proof that we would never exceed the speed of sound, then, lo and behold, a no. of simple solutions were found.

As for Math, going beyond basic college level math, I can be easily left behind, but getting into my fort , Spatial visualization, I have held my own so far, to the extent that I have had no problems in passing Mensa's tests. This allows me to go beyond physical science in it's present level while ignoring many of it's 'present' basic laws.

Can you explain to me how they recently made Aluminum transparant in the lab?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Evening my firend bull: Assuming for the moment that the first landing was not actually accomplished as you suggest, how did they manage to cover the subsequent trips? Each trip would be increasing exponentially the chance of discovering any irregularities or faked operations.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

You want to talk about unbelievable.....................

You want us to believe, or we are suppose to believe that the same government, the very same government and president that could not even hide and cover up a third-rate hotel burglary called Watergate consisting of only a few people, yet they could hide a possible cover up of a conspiracy of the greatest event in not just American history but in human history involving literally thousands of people over the span of 4 decades?

Talk about unbelievable, that is epitome of unbelievable.....................

 

[Kentucky Kache]

You want to talk about unbelievable.....................

You want us to believe, or we are suppose to believe that the same government, the very same government and president that could not even hide and cover up a third-rate hotel burglary called Watergate consisting of only a few people, yet they could hide a possible cover up of a conspiracy of the greatest event in not just American history but in human history involving literally thousands of people over the span of 4 decades?

Talk about unbelievable, that is epitome of unbelievable.....................

As strange as it may seem, the president would not necessarily have been in on the plan, though I think he probably was. The pres. was not a scientist, and even the scientists who were not involved had no reason to doubt a theoretical scientific possibility. Let's say Nixon was in on the plot. With Watergate, he didn't have a secretive organization keeping things under the covers like NASA did with the space program. NASA and the moon landing was a national, even international, event, which was vital to the stability and future of the nation and world. Watergate was a personal event. Had Nixon, alone, tried to pull off something like a fake moon landing with no more help than he had with Watergate, he probably would not have been any more successful than I would have been. Even if the pres. was involved with the moon landing, he would not have been an active player, as he was with his own mess up.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

But what if the President were a very talented paper mache artist?

Then I guess it means he made some very lovely paper mache.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

You want to talk about unbelievable.....................

You want us to believe, or we are suppose to believe that the same government, the very same government and president that could not even hide and cover up a third-rate hotel burglary called Watergate consisting of only a few people, yet they could hide a possible cover up of a conspiracy of the greatest event in not just American history but in human history involving literally thousands of people over the span of 4 decades?

Talk about unbelievable, that is epitome of unbelievable.....................

As strange as it may seem, the president would not necessarily have been in on the plan, though I think he probably was. The pres. was not a scientist, and even the scientists who were not involved had no reason to doubt a theoretical scientific possibility. Let's say Nixon was in on the plot. With Watergate, he didn't have a secretive organization keeping things under the covers like NASA did with the space program. NASA and the moon landing was a national, even international, event, which was vital to the stability and future of the nation and world. Watergate was a personal event. Had Nixon, alone, tried to pull off something like a fake moon landing with no more help than he had with Watergate, he probably would not have been any more successful than I would have been. Even if the pres. was involved with the moon landing, he would not have been an active player, as he was with his own mess up.

But what if the President were a very talented paper mache artist?

BS

 

[Kentucky Kache]

BS

Could you be a little more descriptive?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

The belief the president knew knothing about it, that it is all a conspiracy done by NASA, hidden not only from the world, but also from every person up to and including the president....

So when they release the newest pictures of the Oriber later this summer with high resolution pictures showing even clearer pictures of the Apollo equipment on the moon, that also will be all be part of the conspiracy....... A one way ticket for the conspiracy theorist to see for theirselves is what is needed.

Maybe all of life is a conspiracy and we are all in a petrie dish somewhere............


BS is pretty clear. This thread is BS, I have wasted enough time here, believe what you will Im out of it completely.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

And just because we disagree on the moon landing.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Evening my firend bull: Assuming for the moment that the first landing was not actually accomplished as you suggest, how did they manage to cover the subsequent trips? Each trip would be increasing exponentially the chance of discovering any irregularities or faked operations.

Don Jose de La Mancha

I'm very curious why a certain someone hasn't responded to this very throught-provoking post, Don Jose. Did he reply to you by PM or something?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Evening my firend bull: Assuming for the moment that the first landing was not actually accomplished as you suggest, how did they manage to cover the subsequent trips? Each trip would be increasing exponentially the chance of discovering any irregularities or faked operations.

Don Jose de La Mancha

I don't want to speak for someone else, but what I've already said about that is the simplest, most probable reason I can think of. The first "landing" fooled the world, including the Russians. They had no reason to look for evidence against something that they had seen with their own eyes, and understood by sound scientific theory. And even if they did suspect something, to try to debunk it would have made them look like a bunch of loons. Just look at this thread. But I'm a big boy...I can take it. People get angry at those who don't believe exactly like they do. Those who dare go against the established view are backward, uneducated conspiracy theorists, who know nothing of reality and scientific facts. No one wants to be looked at like that, including the Russians.

That's my view. I'm interested to hear the views of others, for or against.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Evening my firend bull: Assuming for the moment that the first landing was not actually accomplished as you suggest, how did they manage to cover the subsequent trips? Each trip would be increasing exponentially the chance of discovering any irregularities or faked operations.

Don Jose de La Mancha

I don't want to speak for someone else, but what I've already said about that is the simplest, most probable reason I can think of. The first "landing" fooled the world, including the Russians. They had no reason to look for evidence against something that they had seen with their own eyes, and understood by sound scientific theory. And even if they did suspect something, to try to debunk it would have made them look like a bunch of loons. Just look at this thread. But I'm a big boy...I can take it. People get angry at those who don't believe exactly like they do. Those who dare go against the established view are backward, uneducated conspiracy theorists, who know nothing of reality and scientific facts. No one wants to be looked at like that, including the Russians.

That's my view. I'm interested to hear the views of others, for or against.

So, if I'm understanding your thoughts here, the conspiracy theories only began long after the initial landing? Any ideas on what might have prompted this line of thought to begin? The 70's..... 'shrooms and weed, perhaps?? They are known causes of undue paranoia, after all....

 

[PBK]

I am not troubled by most skeptics, but I do worry about a friend's uncle, who warned him that moon landings were insanely dangerous.

"What would happen," he demanded, "if you got up there right when it was changing quarters, and you fell off?

Uh-huh.

 

[ClonedSIM]

I am not troubled by most skeptics, but I do worry about a friend's uncle, who warned him that moon landings were insanely dangerous.

"What would happen," he demanded, "if you got up there right when it was changing quarters, and you fell off?

Uh-huh.

LOLOLOLOLLLL!!! You would get waxed (or waned?) right off into space!!

 

[ClonedSIM]

I am sure that it was real and no it wasn't made in no Hollywood basement !

But my only question about the whole thing is...



Why and what is the purpose ? It has been 40 years and we still can't use the moon, for anything other than what God has intended it to be used for ! I geuss it is all for just braggin' rights !

The purpose was beating Russia. If Russia had beaten us there (they were ahead of us), then they, and not us, would have become the superpower. We were determined to not let JFK's words fail, because that would be America failing.

How do you know for sure that it wasn't all filmed in a studio? Have you seen the "C" rock? They say it was a hair. Only if Bigfoot lives on the moon.
BTW, "C" is also on the ground next to the rock. That is how they do props in movie studios.

The hair was on the film, not on the surface.......

I have a feeling you already know this, but refuse to accept it.....

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Evening my firend bull: Assuming for the moment that the first landing was not actually accomplished as you suggest, how did they manage to cover the subsequent trips? Each trip would be increasing exponentially the chance of discovering any irregularities or faked operations.

Don Jose de La Mancha

I don't want to speak for someone else, but what I've already said about that is the simplest, most probable reason I can think of. The first "landing" fooled the world, including the Russians. They had no reason to look for evidence against something that they had seen with their own eyes, and understood by sound scientific theory. And even if they did suspect something, to try to debunk it would have made them look like a bunch of loons. Just look at this thread. But I'm a big boy...I can take it. People get angry at those who don't believe exactly like they do. Those who dare go against the established view are backward, uneducated conspiracy theorists, who know nothing of reality and scientific facts. No one wants to be looked at like that, including the Russians.

That's my view. I'm interested to hear the views of others, for or against.

So, if I'm understanding your thoughts here, the conspiracy theories only began long after the initial landing? Any ideas on what might have prompted this line of thought to begin? The 70's..... 'shrooms and weed, perhaps?? They are known causes of undue paranoia, after all....

Actually, 'shrooms and weed were here before '69. The doubting of the moon landing didn't start only recently, but there has been a resurgence in it, and I think it's stronger than it ever was. Some (one or two) in the space program, said that, even when it was all going on, something didn't feel right about it. One of those guys was a science advisor for NASA. Today this same guy doubts the moon landing. Is that the reason I doubt it? No. I doubted it before I ever heard of the guy. But it does, or at least should, make you wonder why such a person would believe that way. Of course the standard label for those who question the establishment is "quack". But calling names doesn't explain anything. It just shows that no explanation is available.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Actually, 'shrooms and weed were here before '69. The doubting of the moon landing didn't start only recently, but there has been a resurgence in it, and I think it's stronger than it ever was. Some (one or two) in the space program, said that, even when it was all going on, something didn't feel right about it. One of those guys was a science advisor for NASA. Today this same guy doubts the moon landing. Is that the reason I doubt it? No. I doubted it before I ever heard of the guy. But it does, or at least should, make you wonder why such a person would believe that way. Of course the standard label for those who question the establishment is "quack". But calling names doesn't explain anything. It just shows that no explanation is available.

Of course the drugs were around before the moon landing, but what actually began the whole conspiracy theory? What was the trigger? I find it hard to believe it's roots don't lie in the Nixon/Watergate scandal or thereabouts.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

I am sure that it was real and no it wasn't made in no Hollywood basement !

But my only question about the whole thing is...



Why and what is the purpose ? It has been 40 years and we still can't use the moon, for anything other than what God has intended it to be used for ! I geuss it is all for just braggin' rights !

The purpose was beating Russia. If Russia had beaten us there (they were ahead of us), then they, and not us, would have become the superpower. We were determined to not let JFK's words fail, because that would be America failing.

How do you know for sure that it wasn't all filmed in a studio? Have you seen the "C" rock? They say it was a hair. Only if Bigfoot lives on the moon.
BTW, "C" is also on the ground next to the rock. That is how they do props in movie studios.

The hair was on the film, not on the surface.......

I have a feeling you already know this, but refuse to accept it.....

You're right, they do say the hair was on the lens or film. What they DON'T say is why there is also a "C" next to the rock. They don't say much about the fact that studios use props with numbers or letters to identify them. Studios put a corresponding number or letter on the ground next to where the prop will be set. Someone simply forgot to take care of business with the props.
Regardless of how brilliant a criminal mind, or how well he plans, there is some little something, due to human error, that will tell on him. I learned that from watching Colombo.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Typical responses from those who lack anything real to add to the discussion is to attack the person who delivers the message.


I missed Don's Post, but my response is simple. If they never actually put men on the moon but instead landed machinery, which was within the capabilities of the space program in the 60's and 70's then to repeat the same thing time and again wouldn't be very difficult. It only becomes difficult when humans enter into the equation and our inabilities to withstand even modest amounts of Gama Radiation. The space craft was out of view for each and every flight for significant amounts of time at various points throughout their flights and any thing could have been said, reported or other wise released to the general media at the time and they would have been accepted without question as being fact. For anyone who studies up on our governments operations at the time into such things as propaganda, they'll see just how incredibly this whole scenario would fit the mold of a Government authorized propaganda device.

Since you have, apparently, so much real information to add, perhaps you can tell us when this conspiracy theory began?

And, just for the moment, try to put aside your obvious fear and hatred of the government.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Typical responses from those who lack anything real to add to the discussion is to attack the person who delivers the message.


I missed Don's Post, but my response is simple. If they never actually put men on the moon but instead landed machinery, which was within the capabilities of the space program in the 60's and 70's then to repeat the same thing time and again wouldn't be very difficult. It only becomes difficult when humans enter into the equation and our inabilities to withstand even modest amounts of Gama Radiation. The space craft was out of view for each and every flight for significant amounts of time at various points throughout their flights and any thing could have been said, reported or other wise released to the general media at the time and they would have been accepted without question as being fact. For anyone who studies up on our governments operations at the time into such things as propaganda, they'll see just how incredibly this whole scenario would fit the mold of a Government authorized propaganda device.

Since you have, apparently, so much real information to add, perhaps you can tell us when this conspiracy theory began?

And, just for the moment, try to put aside your obvious fear and hatred of the government.

Before going any further, let's not try and get this thread deleted. We can carry on a discussion without fighting and name calling. Can't we?